Easter Lily & Rising Commemorations

[Il Bomber Destro]

So if the " Southern State" by which I presume you mean the State which calls itself Ireland and consists of East, South, West , Midland and North west Ireland was to acknowledge that they abandoned the Nationalist Community -  what will that do for anyone?
Better they keep putting their energies to ensuring Brits/Unionists don't try unravelling the GFA and that the All Ireland aspects of it are maintained.
Mass slaughter in the 1920s would have been tens of thousands of  Catholics in the North East murdered by well armed Unionists and thousands of Protestants in the rest of Ireland in retaliation.

AQMP -  you're right - it's all about the future and certainly the Nationalist Community and their ( limited no more than our own) political parties should be addressing what the new All Ireland political entity would be like.

What will it do?

It would remove some of the slights and victimisation that northern nationalists have when they look at the Free State, it would give a lot of closure and help reshape some of the distasteful stereotypes that exists in the Free State when it comes to northerners. I'll speak for myself, but I would say if you asked any nationalist from the O6 on here, they do feel a sense of judgement and being looked down upon from the Southeners.

I'm proud of the Provos, galls me to have self serving career politicians like Martin and Kenny moralise and lecture people who actually sacrificed something in their lives, people who put something on the line for their own people. The South to me represents quislings and self serving, amoral corruptible politics. I think there's a serious detachment from the nationalists of the north to the people of the Free State.

[theskull1]

Once again Alex Kane (a good Unionist ) makes sense.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/its-time-hypocritical-unionism-took-look-in-mirror-34588580.html

What a refreshing piece that was.

[Rossfan]

So if the " Southern State" by which I presume you mean the State which calls itself Ireland and consists of East, South, West , Midland and North west Ireland was to acknowledge that they abandoned the Nationalist Community -  what will that do for anyone?
Better they keep putting their energies to ensuring Brits/Unionists don't try unravelling the GFA and that the All Ireland aspects of it are maintained.
Mass slaughter in the 1920s would have been tens of thousands of  Catholics in the North East murdered by well armed Unionists and thousands of Protestants in the rest of Ireland in retaliation.

AQMP -  you're right - it's all about the future and certainly the Nationalist Community and their ( limited no more than our own) political parties should be addressing what the new All Ireland political entity would be like.

What will it do?

It would remove some of the slights and victimisation that northern nationalists have when they look at the Free State, it would give a lot of closure and help reshape some of the distasteful stereotypes that exists in the Free State when it comes to northerners. I'll speak for myself, but I would say if you asked any nationalist from the O6 on here, they do feel a sense of judgement and being looked down upon from the Southeners.

I'm proud of the Provos, galls me to have self serving career politicians like Martin and Kenny moralise and lecture people who actually sacrificed something in their lives, people who put something on the line for their own people. The South to me represents quislings and self serving, amoral corruptible politics. I think there's a serious detachment from the nationalists of the north to the people of the Free State.

What age group are you?
I take it you will never agree to a United Ireland seeing you have such disdain for the 26 Cos and everyone in it.
Perhaps it's time you stopped your insulting everyone and everything in the 26 as you are certainly doing nothing to endear anyone to 6 Co people.

[Applesisapples]

The nature and tone of some of the commentary on here is disappointing. As an Irishman born in the 6 Counties I do not share the views expressed by other Northerners on here in relation to any perceived abandonment by the South. It is easy 90 years hence to look back and throw those accusations out there. But what was the fledgling Southern State meant to do "shake scythes at cannon" to partially quote Heaney. Both sides in the treaty didn't believe that partition would be indefinite, but that underestimated the bloody minded doggedness of unionists under siege in the land they thought of as theirs in a rapidly changing and unstable world. At first glance Northern Nationalists might be disappointed at the inactions of the Government and State which many if not most of my generation viewed as our own. However realistically that was unfair. Until recent years the Irish Government has been at the fore front of endeavours to have a greater say in the workings of the Northern State which even Unionists now accept, all be it with the odd reference to "internal matters" thrown in for comfort. My biggest disappointment has been the obsession with Irish Governments of being even handed in the face of a British Government that never quite became totally neutral, having to declare support for the Union in order that Unionists could be appeased, probably the same reason that the Irish Government did not take a partisan nationalist approach. Michael D's decision is disappointing but not surprising given his party affiliation and the current government's record in the North. Northerners on here are making comments about the desire for a UI in the south whilst ignoring the fact that a majority of Nationalists in the North wouldn't currently vote for one. This neatly brings me back to my favourite argument, that Nationalists (North and South) need to agree what this UI will look like before persuading Unionists or more likely the Catholic majority that it is desirable. Irish Nationalism has always been fractured even back before partition and until those divisions are healed or a confederation agreed upon no progress on a UI is possible, certainly throwing insults on a discussion board or any where else for that matter won't deliver unity.

[rrhf]

Interesting thoughts. 
With a fresh start the country flag and emblems even name would require change.  From the guys who created Legenderry  "Ourland" could even use the rugby anthem. 

[Il Bomber Destro]

The nature and tone of some of the commentary on here is disappointing. As an Irishman born in the 6 Counties I do not share the views expressed by other Northerners on here in relation to any perceived abandonment by the South. It is easy 90 years hence to look back and throw those accusations out there. But what was the fledgling Southern State meant to do "shake scythes at cannon" to partially quote Heaney. Both sides in the treaty didn't believe that partition would be indefinite, but that underestimated the bloody minded doggedness of unionists under siege in the land they thought of as theirs in a rapidly changing and unstable world. At first glance Northern Nationalists might be disappointed at the inactions of the Government and State which many if not most of my generation viewed as our own. However realistically that was unfair. Until recent years the Irish Government has been at the fore front of endeavours to have a greater say in the workings of the Northern State which even Unionists now accept, all be it with the odd reference to "internal matters" thrown in for comfort. My biggest disappointment has been the obsession with Irish Governments of being even handed in the face of a British Government that never quite became totally neutral, having to declare support for the Union in order that Unionists could be appeased, probably the same reason that the Irish Government did not take a partisan nationalist approach. Michael D's decision is disappointing but not surprising given his party affiliation and the current government's record in the North. Northerners on here are making comments about the desire for a UI in the south whilst ignoring the fact that a majority of Nationalists in the North wouldn't currently vote for one. This neatly brings me back to my favourite argument, that Nationalists (North and South) need to agree what this UI will look like before persuading Unionists or more likely the Catholic majority that it is desirable. Irish Nationalism has always been fractured even back before partition and until those divisions are healed or a confederation agreed upon no progress on a UI is possible, certainly throwing insults on a discussion board or any where else for that matter won't deliver unity.

Absolute nonsense, the Free State government were an utter disgrace throughout The Troubles, they kowtowed to the British policy all the way through. Even in recent times, the establishment parties down south have sought to undermine the power sharing agreement in the north over some cheap political capital - that is how much the North means to them.

[grounded]

I also loved the way you edited the quote Fox to drop the question I asked you. Which was

However, I'm not going to express shame for being born in the South, for our country being situated both geographically and economically where it is, for electing politicians who believed dialogue was a more effective way to get change than through violence, and for my generation and the three or four before it, not coming up with an ideal solution for a problem that has defeated every mind on the island for the last 900 years.

If I thought there was a prevailing attitude of malice or disinterest towards other Irishmen and women in the North, I'd feel shame. But I've never felt that myself and I'm not going to put a hairshirt on to alleviate your feelings, much and all as I may empathize with them and feel sick that my compatriots feel that way. But if the State had seen a better course than the one it took, I'm sure it would have taken it.

Empathise?? That really helped. What a cop out.
If the state had seen a better course it would have taken it? You mean apart from sit on their hands surely.
The people of the 26 counties could have been out to demonstrate at their governments inaction but most stayed cosy at home.

Again, no answer to the question - what would you have wanted the government to do? Go on, surprise us, actually attempt to answer it.


There was no real sensible answer to your question so just a few I could think of.

Given that military action was a no go for very good reasons you are only left with political or covert actions.  The Blaney-Haughey affair in 1970 demonstrated that it would have been nigh on impossible for the Republic's government to be involved in arming Northern Nationalists/Republicans given the high level of infiltration by British Intelligence not to mention the resistance within the political elite anyhow.

So much of what people feel is perception. I suppose the introduction of section 31 of the broadcasting act and the Cruiser's amendment in 76 was principally used to prevent radio or TV interviews with Sinn Fein felt like the Irish government through its influence over RTE  was deliberately targeting a sizeable percentage of the Northern Nationalist population who felt Sinn Fein represented their voice. Probably would have abolished that one.
 
During the period 1969 onwards and as most people knew then British intelligence operated with impunity in Northern Ireland. They had infiltrated all the paramilitary groups and worked closely with the security services in the North. The information they gathered on Republicans/Nationalists was quite often leaked to Loyalists and quite often led to the targeting and murder of suspected Republicans and innocent nationalists. They were involved in arming the Loyalist side (Brian Nelson) and nearly certainly in the bombing of Monaghan and Dublin in 1974. They thought nothing of infiltrating the Gardai and Irish government at very high levels.

So given all this why did the Irish government share intelligence?  Given that the British already had infiltrated at very high levels anyhow it mightn't have mattered, but if the Irish Government had of publicly stated they would not share information/intelligence as they feared the information was being used inappropriately it would have shone at least a little of the international spotlight on the spooks and their actions. 

Given that Britain had its spies, its not beyond the realms of imagination (Collin's had his man in the castle  ) that the Irish could have placed/obtained a few snitches in the security services in the North. The release of confidential security information i.e inhumane treatment of prisoners or the running of agents would certainly have been embarrassing for the British.

[Maguire01]

At least the Monaghan Republican Front  tried  to invade and liberate Tyrone from the yoke of brit imperialism and their various quasi-military backwoods thug lackeys  but we were betrayed and undone by a local snitch.

And now look at how Tyrone repays us for that blood loss of our children?

It was a Monaghan man who betrayed the Loughgall martyrs.

Was a Monaghan Man lead them too

Martyrs? Really??

A martyr is someone who is killer because of their religious or other beliefs. Which is what happened to those men. So while you may not agree with their beliefs and actions you can't really deny they were martyrs

Killer or killed?

Either way, a martyr is someone who chooses persecution or death rather than renounce their beliefs. You don't become a martyr just by being killed.

[Maguire01]

You somehow seem to be revising an outlook that The War of  Independence was a success. It may have got the 26 it's freedom but it created a sectarian statelet which would inevitably lead to another bloody conflict

Yeah revisionism is to be reviled

You paint the Provos campaign as a failure. It certainly hastened a more equal and accommodating society for nationalists to live in today. It seems to have delivered peace to the island, certainly for the time being.

f**king brilliant. You really are a deranged tool but I really, really wish you had your own TV show ("An Idiot at Home") or channel even dedicated to your espousal of your views. You would make a fortune in advertising revenues.

Are you denying that the O6 state has not been in a relative state of peace since the GFA was signed?

I think what you don't like about me is that I'm a skilled debater while you are an empty vessel.

A skilled debater would note that ending a conflict to bring about a state of peace, does not mean that the conflict itself achieved peace. Peace is the absence of conflict.

I didn't say the conflict achieved peace, I said it hastened the process for equal rights which in turn lessened the appetite for conflict, culminating in a peace process.

Yes you did

I did not and you are a liar, the end result of the conflict was a hastened process of equal rights to the nationalist community, thus reducing the civil unrest, thus facilitating the requirements for a peaceful state.

Hastened how exactly?

Equal rights for housing, employment etc. were secured decades before the end of the conflict. What equal rights were achieved in 1998?

[AQMP]

TV Mike Nesbitt and his mates won't be getting a Rising dinner either

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35941061

[Il Bomber Destro]

You somehow seem to be revising an outlook that The War of  Independence was a success. It may have got the 26 it's freedom but it created a sectarian statelet which would inevitably lead to another bloody conflict

Yeah revisionism is to be reviled

You paint the Provos campaign as a failure. It certainly hastened a more equal and accommodating society for nationalists to live in today. It seems to have delivered peace to the island, certainly for the time being.

f**king brilliant. You really are a deranged tool but I really, really wish you had your own TV show ("An Idiot at Home") or channel even dedicated to your espousal of your views. You would make a fortune in advertising revenues.

Are you denying that the O6 state has not been in a relative state of peace since the GFA was signed?

I think what you don't like about me is that I'm a skilled debater while you are an empty vessel.

A skilled debater would note that ending a conflict to bring about a state of peace, does not mean that the conflict itself achieved peace. Peace is the absence of conflict.

I didn't say the conflict achieved peace, I said it hastened the process for equal rights which in turn lessened the appetite for conflict, culminating in a peace process.

Yes you did

I did not and you are a liar, the end result of the conflict was a hastened process of equal rights to the nationalist community, thus reducing the civil unrest, thus facilitating the requirements for a peaceful state.

Hastened how exactly?

Equal rights for housing, employment etc. were secured decades before the end of the conflict. What equal rights were achieved in 1998?

Where are you getting that from? It seems like a load of nonsense to me, up until the late 80s, there were nearly 3 times more Catholics unemployed that Protestants. Did this change just happen overnight then?

Do you think that equal rights would have been achieved without the arm campaign in such a short period of time, given the civil rights movement kicked off in the late 60s.

It took the Irish until 1991 to get social parity with the native Scots, a good 150 years after they arrived during the famine. Do

[Maguire01]

You somehow seem to be revising an outlook that The War of  Independence was a success. It may have got the 26 it's freedom but it created a sectarian statelet which would inevitably lead to another bloody conflict

Yeah revisionism is to be reviled

You paint the Provos campaign as a failure. It certainly hastened a more equal and accommodating society for nationalists to live in today. It seems to have delivered peace to the island, certainly for the time being.

f**king brilliant. You really are a deranged tool but I really, really wish you had your own TV show ("An Idiot at Home") or channel even dedicated to your espousal of your views. You would make a fortune in advertising revenues.

Are you denying that the O6 state has not been in a relative state of peace since the GFA was signed?

I think what you don't like about me is that I'm a skilled debater while you are an empty vessel.

A skilled debater would note that ending a conflict to bring about a state of peace, does not mean that the conflict itself achieved peace. Peace is the absence of conflict.

I didn't say the conflict achieved peace, I said it hastened the process for equal rights which in turn lessened the appetite for conflict, culminating in a peace process.

Yes you did

I did not and you are a liar, the end result of the conflict was a hastened process of equal rights to the nationalist community, thus reducing the civil unrest, thus facilitating the requirements for a peaceful state.

Hastened how exactly?

Equal rights for housing, employment etc. were secured decades before the end of the conflict. What equal rights were achieved in 1998?

Where are you getting that from? It seems like a load of nonsense to me, up until the late 80s, there were nearly 3 times more Catholics unemployed that Protestants. Did this change just happen overnight then?

Do you think that equal rights would have been achieved without the arm campaign in such a short period of time, given the civil rights movement kicked off in the late 60s.

The Housing Executive was established in 1971. Yes, Catholic unemployment remained high, but improved as demographics changed, industries changed, and an educated Catholic workforce came into play. The number of Catholics in employment didn't rise because of the troubles. Unless you can point to some specific events in the late 1980s that brought this change about?

What specific civil rights did the conflict deliver?

The civil rights argument is a fig leaf. It may be the context of the start of the troubles, but it persisted with the aim of a United Ireland. Because this wasn't achieved, there's this notion that it was a 30 year conflict for civil rights.

[Applesisapples]

The nature and tone of some of the commentary on here is disappointing. As an Irishman born in the 6 Counties I do not share the views expressed by other Northerners on here in relation to any perceived abandonment by the South. It is easy 90 years hence to look back and throw those accusations out there. But what was the fledgling Southern State meant to do "shake scythes at cannon" to partially quote Heaney. Both sides in the treaty didn't believe that partition would be indefinite, but that underestimated the bloody minded doggedness of unionists under siege in the land they thought of as theirs in a rapidly changing and unstable world. At first glance Northern Nationalists might be disappointed at the inactions of the Government and State which many if not most of my generation viewed as our own. However realistically that was unfair. Until recent years the Irish Government has been at the fore front of endeavours to have a greater say in the workings of the Northern State which even Unionists now accept, all be it with the odd reference to "internal matters" thrown in for comfort. My biggest disappointment has been the obsession with Irish Governments of being even handed in the face of a British Government that never quite became totally neutral, having to declare support for the Union in order that Unionists could be appeased, probably the same reason that the Irish Government did not take a partisan nationalist approach. Michael D's decision is disappointing but not surprising given his party affiliation and the current government's record in the North. Northerners on here are making comments about the desire for a UI in the south whilst ignoring the fact that a majority of Nationalists in the North wouldn't currently vote for one. This neatly brings me back to my favourite argument, that Nationalists (North and South) need to agree what this UI will look like before persuading Unionists or more likely the Catholic majority that it is desirable. Irish Nationalism has always been fractured even back before partition and until those divisions are healed or a confederation agreed upon no progress on a UI is possible, certainly throwing insults on a discussion board or any where else for that matter won't deliver unity.

Absolute nonsense, the Free State government were an utter disgrace throughout The Troubles, they kowtowed to the British policy all the way through. Even in recent times, the establishment parties down south have sought to undermine the power sharing agreement in the north over some cheap political capital - that is how much the North means to them.

Bomber some of your comments are outrageous and insulting how the hell did you expect the Irish Government to get the Brits out?

[Il Bomber Destro]

The nature and tone of some of the commentary on here is disappointing. As an Irishman born in the 6 Counties I do not share the views expressed by other Northerners on here in relation to any perceived abandonment by the South. It is easy 90 years hence to look back and throw those accusations out there. But what was the fledgling Southern State meant to do "shake scythes at cannon" to partially quote Heaney. Both sides in the treaty didn't believe that partition would be indefinite, but that underestimated the bloody minded doggedness of unionists under siege in the land they thought of as theirs in a rapidly changing and unstable world. At first glance Northern Nationalists might be disappointed at the inactions of the Government and State which many if not most of my generation viewed as our own. However realistically that was unfair. Until recent years the Irish Government has been at the fore front of endeavours to have a greater say in the workings of the Northern State which even Unionists now accept, all be it with the odd reference to "internal matters" thrown in for comfort. My biggest disappointment has been the obsession with Irish Governments of being even handed in the face of a British Government that never quite became totally neutral, having to declare support for the Union in order that Unionists could be appeased, probably the same reason that the Irish Government did not take a partisan nationalist approach. Michael D's decision is disappointing but not surprising given his party affiliation and the current government's record in the North. Northerners on here are making comments about the desire for a UI in the south whilst ignoring the fact that a majority of Nationalists in the North wouldn't currently vote for one. This neatly brings me back to my favourite argument, that Nationalists (North and South) need to agree what this UI will look like before persuading Unionists or more likely the Catholic majority that it is desirable. Irish Nationalism has always been fractured even back before partition and until those divisions are healed or a confederation agreed upon no progress on a UI is possible, certainly throwing insults on a discussion board or any where else for that matter won't deliver unity.

Absolute nonsense, the Free State government were an utter disgrace throughout The Troubles, they kowtowed to the British policy all the way through. Even in recent times, the establishment parties down south have sought to undermine the power sharing agreement in the north over some cheap political capital - that is how much the North means to them.

Bomber some of your comments are outrageous and insulting how the hell did you expect the Irish Government to get the Brits out?

Did I expect them to get the Brits out? No.

Did I expect them to send their armed forces in to protect the nationalist community who had nobody to defend as they were under attack in a sectarian state? Yes, absolutely. There are no reasonable excuses for their inaction.

[easytiger95]

I also loved the way you edited the quote Fox to drop the question I asked you. Which was

However, I'm not going to express shame for being born in the South, for our country being situated both geographically and economically where it is, for electing politicians who believed dialogue was a more effective way to get change than through violence, and for my generation and the three or four before it, not coming up with an ideal solution for a problem that has defeated every mind on the island for the last 900 years.

If I thought there was a prevailing attitude of malice or disinterest towards other Irishmen and women in the North, I'd feel shame. But I've never felt that myself and I'm not going to put a hairshirt on to alleviate your feelings, much and all as I may empathize with them and feel sick that my compatriots feel that way. But if the State had seen a better course than the one it took, I'm sure it would have taken it.

Empathise?? That really helped. What a cop out.
If the state had seen a better course it would have taken it? You mean apart from sit on their hands surely.
The people of the 26 counties could have been out to demonstrate at their governments inaction but most stayed cosy at home.

Again, no answer to the question - what would you have wanted the government to do? Go on, surprise us, actually attempt to answer it.


There was no real sensible answer to your question so just a few I could think of.

Given that military action was a no go for very good reasons you are only left with political or covert actions.  The Blaney-Haughey affair in 1970 demonstrated that it would have been nigh on impossible for the Republic's government to be involved in arming Northern Nationalists/Republicans given the high level of infiltration by British Intelligence not to mention the resistance within the political elite anyhow.

So much of what people feel is perception. I suppose the introduction of section 31 of the broadcasting act and the Cruiser's amendment in 76 was principally used to prevent radio or TV interviews with Sinn Fein felt like the Irish government through its influence over RTE  was deliberately targeting a sizeable percentage of the Northern Nationalist population who felt Sinn Fein represented their voice. Probably would have abolished that one.
 
During the period 1969 onwards and as most people knew then British intelligence operated with impunity in Northern Ireland. They had infiltrated all the paramilitary groups and worked closely with the security services in the North. The information they gathered on Republicans/Nationalists was quite often leaked to Loyalists and quite often led to the targeting and murder of suspected Republicans and innocent nationalists. They were involved in arming the Loyalist side (Brian Nelson) and nearly certainly in the bombing of Monaghan and Dublin in 1974. They thought nothing of infiltrating the Gardai and Irish government at very high levels.

So given all this why did the Irish government share intelligence?  Given that the British already had infiltrated at very high levels anyhow it mightn't have mattered, but if the Irish Government had of publicly stated they would not share information/intelligence as they feared the information was being used inappropriately it would have shone at least a little of the international spotlight on the spooks and their actions. 

Given that Britain had its spies, its not beyond the realms of imagination (Collin's had his man in the castle  ) that the Irish could have placed/obtained a few snitches in the security services in the North. The release of confidential security information i.e inhumane treatment of prisoners or the running of agents would certainly have been embarrassing for the British.
[/quote

Thanks grounded - some stuff I definitely didn't think of there, notably the intelligence sharing option and going public with the non-cooperation.