The Race for the ARAS.....

[Evil Genius]

EG, contrary to your post, the first british soldier killed was actually Hugh McCabe in 1969, who was killed by the RUC. Furthermore, the first RUC officer to be killed (Constable William Arbuckle), was killed by loyalists. The first sectarian killings (of John Scullion and Peter Ward) were carried out by the UVF; the first bombings (in 1969), by loyalists; the first state killings (of Sammy Devenney, in front of his family; of nine-year-old Patrick Rooney) by the RUC.

I am well aware of those events, however they in no way contradict my point, which was this.

It was implied that it was Bloody Sunday (Jan.72) which forced the Nationalist population to conclude that there was no other way of achieving Civil Rights etc than by the gun.

Yet there is  clear and undeniable evidence to prove that long before Bloody Sunday, a section of the Nationalist population had moved far from the demonstrations and civil disobedience etc of NICRA, Peoples Democracy and the constitutional Nationalist parties, and instead opted for the Provos.

Moreover, whatever the revisionist version of history concocted today by SF, the Provos were NOT primarily concerned to achieve Civil Rights and Equality for Nationalists in NI. Rather they were concerned solely with bombing and shooting the Brits out of NI and achieving a United Ireland.

Otherwise, how do you explain eg: "Sunday 11 July 1971 - The IRA exploded a number of bombs in the centre of Belfast injuring a number of people. [A number of commentators saw these bombs as an attempt to increase tension and confrontations between the two main communities.]"

How were atrocities like that meant to make the case for Civil Rights, eh? 

[Evil Genius]

1 million unionists is a myth...

Doesn't prevent him from trotting it out at every (un)available opportunity though (Walter Mitty was more grounded in reality).

He'd do well to read 'Northern Protestants; an unsettled people', by Susan Mc Kay - he could learn so much about the northern prods, so much, since he's so obviously clueless about them.

Christ-on-a-bike!

No sooner have we Panurban lecturing Southerners about how much more integrity Northerners have than them, but now we have you lecturing this "northern prod" about his own community, and what we think...

[Evil Genius]

When it comes to trust,integrity and principle, any northener Unionist or Nationalist is superior to the products of the sentimental, pietistic, censorious society that was the Irish Free State and the pretend republic that evolved from it.

Oi! Don't drag us into your bitter little family squabble

Better a reluctant British subject, than a citizen of a corrupt,hypocritical,delusional Republic, which is for sale to the highest bidder

If you might be "reluctant" to join the Brits, it's safe to say we're even more reluctant to have you...

[Evil Genius]

Evil Genius I can tell you I have several friends from a Northern Protestant &/or Northern Unionist background over here in Liverpool and quite a few of them vary from being able to accept a United Ireland if it ever comes about (but still wanting to keep up the connection with the British armed forces) to a friend who regularly says she hopes there is a United Ireland will happen soon, but she is British & Irish until it happens. She in fact she almost exclusively associates with Irish people and has a bit of an attitude towards England (which I think is a bit ungrateful as she lives over here).

I know this is little more than anecdotal evidence, but if the likes of these people move back to the North, your secure Union may not be as secure as you would like to believe.

Sorry, but it is not "little more than" anecdotal evidence, it is solely anecdotal evidence.

And imo, it is a hell of a sight more "anecdotal" then "evidence".

As for the future of the Union, my most recent posts on this thread indicate as best I can exactly why I am more confident in the future of the Union than at any time I can remember. 

[Magicsponge]

Why can't we just let Mary McAleese keep the job. I know that's not how democracy works, but screw democracy, most of the candidates are muppets

[Evil Genius]

The general populace of the south would never, ever vote to remove the rights of northerners to hold Irish passports. If you seriously believe this, you are deluded.

Indeed, at the prices they charge, selling Passports to Nordies is the Free State's fourth highest export earner after Racehorses to the Gulf, Green Dye to Boston on St. Paddy's Day and Fake Oirish Pubs to Moscow! 

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=259

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

EG you're British one minute and then Irish the next, make up you're mind please. 

[AQMP]

The general populace of the south would never, ever vote to remove the rights of northerners to hold Irish passports. If you seriously believe this, you are deluded.

Indeed, at the prices they charge, selling Passports to Nordies is the Free State's fourth highest export earner after Racehorses to the Gulf, Green Dye to Boston on St. Paddy's Day and Fake Oirish Pubs to Moscow! 

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=259

Isn't it currently cheaper than a British passport I think??

[mylestheslasher]

EG - SF might have 15% in the republic but you do realise that all the major parties in the South are for a united Ireland, even FG. Likewise in the North more than just SF are also in favour, namely the SDLP. I hope, with some persuading, that a chunk of unionists might also be convinced. Not that mad when you consider in 1798 a large proportion of the rebels in the united Irishmen in Ulster were protestant and ancestors of settlers.

You might look back to 1798  for evidence that sufficient numbers of Unionists can be persuaded to renounce their identity, heritage, aspirations and current (relative) economic stability etc, for a UI.

But this particular Unionist prefers to restrict his search to, say, the last fifty years*. And ALL the evidence of that time indicates that far from Unionists abandoning their stance, they are actually as determined as ever to maintain it.

And insofar as there has been significant movement in political thinking on this island in recent times, it is that (a ) since their Civil and Economic Rights have been granted and recognised, Nationalists in NI have become increasingly less obsessed with the National Question, whilst (b ) Nationalists in the Republic have been increasingly disinclined to give a fcuk about anything that takes place North of the Border.

Happy Days! 



* - You know, a period which constitutes "living memory" for the vast majority of people

Being a unionist we should be used to you being unable to look too far back alright

However, the point I was making (as you know well) is that there were in certain periods of history sets of circumstances where large amounts of unionists favoured a separate country from the UK.

I suspect I may know my Irish history as well as you, therefore I do not need to be told about eg Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen etc.

But if the Border is to be abolished anytime soon, it will only happen if a majority of the people alive in NI today  will it.

And as I pointed out in my reply to Apples (above), all the evidence indicates that insofar as there is movement on the issue, the current trend is towards retaining  the Border, not abolishing it.

It is up to nationalists, republicans to demonstrate why those reasons exists today. Thats all I am saying and your mocking tone does nothing but make you look foolish.

Well they're making a pretty crap job of it, I'll say!

It is also worth noting that while you imply people wishing a united Ireland are a small irrelevant proportion, that is not the case. Lets say 42% of Northern catholics wish a unit ireland, what % of protestants would have to be convinced to crossover the 50% threshold. You are the genius, all be it an evil one, so you can work out the maths.

Firstly, it is all very well saying that if, say,  8% of Unionist voters switched position over the Border, from voting figures in Elections that might give Nationalism a majority. Except that what evidence as there is indicates that Nationalists are retreating from their pro-Unity position at least as much as Unionists are from their pro-Union position.

Second, whilst 42% of the Electorate of NI may vote in Elections for Nationalist Parties like SF/SDLP, it simply cannot be extrapolated therefrom that that number would all vote for Unity in a Referendum.
In fact, there is sound evidence to believe that many fewer would actually do so, eg:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2009/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

Third, your casual use of the terms "Protestant" and "Catholic", when these should actually be "Unionist" and "Nationalist", denotes a mindset that remains rooted in the 20th, or even 19th, Century.
It's no wonder that you seem to use ancient history to support your case, even whilst it (history) is being made increasingly irrelevant by developments in the 21st Century.

You might want to start playing Catch-Up...

So at the end of that long winding post the answer is about 8%. Thanks for that, a gold star on its way to you. MGHU already has one protestant/loyalist/unionist/orangeman/settler (pick a label that you like) converted so we have made a start and the other one he knows is in England so he can't vote. If only we had a few more MGHU people we'd be no time getting that 8% sorted out.

Btw - just curious, when the last person alive that fought in WW2 dies can it then be forgotten about, I mean I'm just sick of people going on about shite that happened 70 years ago. When was the battle of the Boyne, 1974 was it?

[Evil Genius]

EG you're British one minute and then Irish the next, make up you're mind please. 

Dear oh dear, you really don't get even the simplest of concepts, do you?

Let me remind you once more of the Good Friday Agreement, which inter alia addresses this very issue, thus:

"[This Agreement recognises] 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"
http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf

This is the same GFA which was negotiated so enthusiastically by your beloved Shinners, by the way.   

P.S. I'm also European. 

[Evil Genius]

EG - SF might have 15% in the republic but you do realise that all the major parties in the South are for a united Ireland, even FG. Likewise in the North more than just SF are also in favour, namely the SDLP. I hope, with some persuading, that a chunk of unionists might also be convinced. Not that mad when you consider in 1798 a large proportion of the rebels in the united Irishmen in Ulster were protestant and ancestors of settlers.

You might look back to 1798  for evidence that sufficient numbers of Unionists can be persuaded to renounce their identity, heritage, aspirations and current (relative) economic stability etc, for a UI.

But this particular Unionist prefers to restrict his search to, say, the last fifty years*. And ALL the evidence of that time indicates that far from Unionists abandoning their stance, they are actually as determined as ever to maintain it.

And insofar as there has been significant movement in political thinking on this island in recent times, it is that (a ) since their Civil and Economic Rights have been granted and recognised, Nationalists in NI have become increasingly less obsessed with the National Question, whilst (b ) Nationalists in the Republic have been increasingly disinclined to give a fcuk about anything that takes place North of the Border.

Happy Days! 



* - You know, a period which constitutes "living memory" for the vast majority of people

Being a unionist we should be used to you being unable to look too far back alright

However, the point I was making (as you know well) is that there were in certain periods of history sets of circumstances where large amounts of unionists favoured a separate country from the UK.

I suspect I may know my Irish history as well as you, therefore I do not need to be told about eg Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen etc.

But if the Border is to be abolished anytime soon, it will only happen if a majority of the people alive in NI today  will it.

And as I pointed out in my reply to Apples (above), all the evidence indicates that insofar as there is movement on the issue, the current trend is towards retaining  the Border, not abolishing it.

It is up to nationalists, republicans to demonstrate why those reasons exists today. Thats all I am saying and your mocking tone does nothing but make you look foolish.

Well they're making a pretty crap job of it, I'll say!

It is also worth noting that while you imply people wishing a united Ireland are a small irrelevant proportion, that is not the case. Lets say 42% of Northern catholics wish a unit ireland, what % of protestants would have to be convinced to crossover the 50% threshold. You are the genius, all be it an evil one, so you can work out the maths.

Firstly, it is all very well saying that if, say,  8% of Unionist voters switched position over the Border, from voting figures in Elections that might give Nationalism a majority. Except that what evidence as there is indicates that Nationalists are retreating from their pro-Unity position at least as much as Unionists are from their pro-Union position.

Second, whilst 42% of the Electorate of NI may vote in Elections for Nationalist Parties like SF/SDLP, it simply cannot be extrapolated therefrom that that number would all vote for Unity in a Referendum.
In fact, there is sound evidence to believe that many fewer would actually do so, eg:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2009/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

Third, your casual use of the terms "Protestant" and "Catholic", when these should actually be "Unionist" and "Nationalist", denotes a mindset that remains rooted in the 20th, or even 19th, Century.
It's no wonder that you seem to use ancient history to support your case, even whilst it (history) is being made increasingly irrelevant by developments in the 21st Century.

You might want to start playing Catch-Up...

So at the end of that long winding post the answer is about 8%. Thanks for that, a gold star on its way to you. MGHU already has one protestant/loyalist/unionist/orangeman/settler (pick a label that you like) converted so we have made a start and the other one he knows is in England so he can't vote. If only we had a few more MGHU people we'd be no time getting that 8% sorted out.

So you choose to ignore the context completely (because it evidently doesn't suit) and home in on one figure (8%), which you use to try to bolster your case.

You know, your case is about as credible as eg a Newcastle United fan pointing to the EPL Table and claiming that the Toon are going to win it, on the basis that they're only six points behind the leaders, Man City, with two games against them still to come:
http://www.premierleague.com/page/LeagueTables

Well let me remind you, they're not going to win those two games, they're not going to make up the deficit, they're not even going to finish above several other teams, either. They're not good enough to win the EPL. They've never won it. Their best chance was back in the mid-90's, since when they've never looked remotely like winning it. And failing a miracle (or an insane Arab Billionaire taking over), there is no sign that they're ever going to win it. In fact, the only people who think they will are a section of their deluded supporters.

So maybe you should read that again, only this time replacing "Premier League" with "United Ireland" and "Newcastle United" with "Sinn Fein"...

Btw - just curious, when the last person alive that fought in WW2 dies can it then be forgotten about, I mean I'm just sick of people going on about shite that happened 70 years ago.

Nowhere have I ever claimed that History should ever be forgotten about, or disregarded.

Rather, what I believe is that while History may point to valuable lessons for the Present, we should never be bound by it - not least because no two people can ever agree on exactly what it is History can teach us (in Ireland, at any rate!).

Further, no-one should be entitled to point to the good deeds or achievements of his forebears and use those to justify his present misdeeds or failures etc, any more than someone should be denied credit for his present-day accomplishments, on the basis that some of his forebears might have been villains.

In other words, each of us should be accountable for our own words and deeds, which principle applies eg to Paramilitaries and Politicians no less than anyone else.

When was the battle of the Boyne, 1974 was it?

No, it was in 1690, which is why I think it pretty irrelevant to the present political situation in Ireland.
Had it been in 1974, however, I would readily agree that the actions and opinions of those who fought in the battle (and who were still alive today), would clearly need to be taken into account when trying to resolve the issues of the day.

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

EG you're British one minute and then Irish the next, make up you're mind please. 

Dear oh dear, you really don't get even the simplest of concepts, do you?

Let me remind you once more of the Good Friday Agreement, which inter alia addresses this very issue, thus:

"[This Agreement recognises] 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"
http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf

This is the same GFA which was negotiated so enthusiastically by your beloved Shinners, by the way.   

P.S. I'm also European. 

Tongue in cheek, you really need to lighten up sometimes, get out, have a beer, blow some of them cobwebs out of your trousers! 

[Tubberman]

EG, as a proud and life-long partitionist, would you kindly refrain from clogging up a thread dedicated to the election of a foreign head of state. Thanks 

[Evil Genius]

EG, as a proud and life-long partitionist, would you kindly refrain from clogging up a thread dedicated to the election of a foreign head of state. Thanks 

Point taken! 

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

1 million unionists is a myth...

Doesn't prevent him from trotting it out at every (un)available opportunity though (Walter Mitty was more grounded in reality).

He'd do well to read 'Northern Protestants; an unsettled people', by Susan Mc Kay - he could learn so much about the northern prods, so much, since he's so obviously clueless about them.

Christ-on-a-bike!

No sooner have we Panurban lecturing Southerners about how much more integrity Northerners have than them, but now we have you lecturing this "northern prod" about his own community, and what we think...

Susan Mc Kay is a northern prod, who's actually spoken with plenty of other northern protestants from every political hue and none in the course of composing that book (you obviously haven't read her book, on account of spouting so much pseudo-prod shite). You're remote, in more ways than one, and I know whose opinion I trust more.

Walter Mitty was a human, but that didn't stop him believing that he was superhuman, mostly.