Supposing Scotland were to secede from the UK (and if you want to get into the yes-it-will-no-it-won't debate can you please use the Old Firm thread where that's already being discussed), and supposing Wales were to make progress in that direction, how would that affect the quest for Irish unity? Would northern unionists keep pledging allegiance to the Queen of England or would they want to throw in their lot with their Scottish brethren? Would they become even more confused than they are now? And if so would this help or hinder the Irish nationalist cause?
Discuss.
The Scottish and Welsh don't have the divisions in society that still exist here. Also Welsh independence is a long long way off and the Scots first tentative steps are only a referendum which will more likely than not end in a defeat.
All in all I don't think this makes a whole lot of difference to Irish unity. Scottish independence would probably bolster Irish nationalism but I think it is a long way off.
Confusing times for OWCers. I guess their options will be
1) Realise they are actualy Irish.
2) Try to join a United Scotland.
3) Try to join a United England.
4) Fight for an Independant Six Counties.
It would be interesting to pidgeonhole various unionists into the above categories. For example Jeffrey Donaldson would be category 3.
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2012, 11:34:32 AM
Confusing times for OWCers. I guess their options will be
1) Realise they are actualy Irish.
2) Try to join a United Scotland.
3) Try to join a United England.
4) Fight for an Independant Six Counties.
It would be interesting to pidgeonhole various unionists into the above categories. For example Jeffrey Donaldson would be category 3.
Considering this would be framed in a context where the 26 are being sucked into a more United Europe, while Cameron is leading Britain further away from Europe, it all gets very complicated.
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2012, 11:34:32 AM
Confusing times for OWCers. I guess their options will be
1) Realise they are actualy Irish.
2) Try to join a United Scotland.
3) Try to join a United England.
4) Fight for an Independant Six Counties.
It would be interesting to pidgeonhole various unionists into the above categories. For example Jeffrey Donaldson would be category 3.
Nelson McCausland 2?
Please tick all applicable categories:
Am not Arish
Am Brattish
Am Anglish
Am Scattish
No, no, no
It won't make a jot of difference to my desire for a united Ireland. How would Unionists react? *whistles* . . .
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2012, 11:34:32 AM
Confusing times for OWCers. I guess their options will be
1) Realise they are actualy Irish.
Of course we're Irish. It's just that we differ from people like you in our definition of "Irishness", and with it the conclusion that this does not also preclude us from membership of a Union with our fellow Britons in England, Wales & Scotland.
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2012, 11:34:32 AM2) Try to join a United Scotland.
There might be some dingbats out there who would propose such a notion (Nelson McCausland?), but there is no way the Scots would want such an idea. Nor me.
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2012, 11:34:32 AM3) Try to join a United England.
See Option 2 - with bells on!
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2012, 11:34:32 AM4) Fight for an Independant Six Counties.
I honestly don't see Unionism "fighting" for Independence
unless (a ) England/Wales tried to force us into a UI on very disadvantageous terms; and/or
(b ) The ROI tried to subsume us on similarly disadvantageous terms; and/or
(c ) The Dissidents and SF/IRA saw this as their chance to "snatch victory from the jaws of defeat" and resumed the armed struggle
[sic] (i.e. as a means of influencing the make-up of a new UI to their own racist, nationalistic vision).
But if the above did happen (esp the last), I suppose I could just see Unionism again feeling sufficiently beseiged to "close the gates with a shout of 'No Surrender', before rushing to man the ramparts etc".
Fortunately, however, I can't see either ROI nor England being stupid enough to force us down that route (the Dissidents and Shinners being another matter, mind).
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2012, 11:34:32 AMIt would be interesting to pidgeonhole various unionists into the above categories. For example Jeffrey Donaldson would be category 3.
I agree with your implication that Unionists would be divided in their reaction to a breakaway from the Union by Scotland (and the subsequent move by Wales to do the same which imo would soon follow).
Consequently, I feel that unless the politicians severely fcuked things up, the overwhelmingly likely outcome for Ireland would be some sort of new federal arrangement between NI and ROI. And so long as it was freely and fairly negotiated etc, I personally would not be especially averse to that.
That is "the Bad News".
The "Good News" is that I genuinely don't believe it will come to that, essentially because a majority of Scots aren't so stupid as to vote to leave the Union - as Sleekit Alex Salmond knows only too well.
Indeed, I personally welcome the present debate on the subject and firmly believe that a Referendum defeat would more likely than not spell the beginning of the end for Scottish Nationalism - as eg the Bloque Quebecois found after their (close) failures in quest for independence in the 1990's, which led to their eventual obliteration at the Polls by the time of the 2011 Canadian General Election:
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html
Wow, that worked a treat. Liam McCarthy Cup! *whistles* . . .
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 13, 2012, 12:59:26 PM
There might be some dingbats out there who would propose such a notion (Nelson McCausland?), but there is no way the Scots would want such an idea. Nor me.
Id have thought Nelson might push for reuniting us with the other tribes of israel instead.
Quote from: nifan on January 13, 2012, 02:07:56 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 13, 2012, 12:59:26 PM
There might be some dingbats out there who would propose such a notion (Nelson McCausland?), but there is no way the Scots would want such an idea. Nor me.
Id have thought Nelson might push for reuniting us with the other tribes of israel instead.
:D I thought they were lost! Has someone found them?!
This is a novel topic on this board, looking forward to some fresh debate.
The wee six is financially dependent on the tit of the UK exchequer and has no chance of
going it alone as an independent statelet.
i think the state of the Irish economy would make up anybodys mind if they were asked to vote in a referendum on Irish Unity.
Quote from: snoopdog on January 13, 2012, 03:26:18 PM
i think the state of the Irish economy would make up anybodys mind if they were asked to vote in a referendum on Irish Unity.
by 2016 the Irish economy will have digested most of the collapse of the banks. Norn Irn will still be mainling English cash.
If I recall correctly the DUP have tended towards mistrust of London, they have always screamed the loudest for the resignation of every secretary of state that was sent over and were always the most scathing in their attacks on the sell-out traitors across the water.
The UUP was more about crawling to Number 10 every month for reassurances that the union was safe.
Then you had people like Robert "I'm the greatest human being ever to have lived and the most important man in the world" McCartney who were complete integrationists. They were all about copying whatever policy they were pushing in London just to prove that Northern Ireland was an integral part of the UK, irrespective of whether the policy was right for the place or not.
Can you imagine them having to fly a redesigned union jack with the St Andrew's Cross removed? That'd mess their heads up something fierce!
What I find interesting about the Scottish and Welsh nationalists is that they seem to have been largely untainted by religion, although it probably helps that Britain is a less religious place than Ireland. It's a shame that Irish nationalism came to be so heavily identified with catholics and the religious and political labels of protestant/unionist and catholic/nationalist became so interchangeable. It'll stay that way as long as the education system is segregated and so many people remain in denial about the divisive effects of the partitioned education system in the north.
Quote from: seafoid on January 13, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
The wee six is financially dependent on the tit of the UK exchequer and has no chance of
going it alone as an independent statelet.
I've never heard HM Treasury nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer describing it quite in those terms!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2012, 07:14:11 PM
What I find interesting about the Scottish and Welsh nationalists is that they seem to have been largely untainted by religion, although it probably helps that Britain is a less religious place than Ireland.
To the extent that the sectarian issues in Scotland are seen as "an Irish problem", and are very alien to people from outside West Central Scotland. The 'religious' bampots in Scotland cling on to the flags and emblems of the Irish conflict, although naturally those that identify as Loyalists will have a certain view of the debate in Scotland.
The heartland of SNP support has traditionally the North East - a traditionally prosperous rural area with a streak of conservative communitarianism, but still open to the world through the trading and fishing fleets (and enthusiastic participant in the empire through The Gordons). Our history's different, our circumstances and motivations are different, and (hopefully) the way we leave the union will be different.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2012, 07:14:11 PMIt's a shame that Irish nationalism came to be so heavily identified with catholics and the religious and political labels of protestant/unionist and catholic/nationalist became so interchangeable.
Divide and rule. As an outsider, I've always thought the failure of the United Irishmen was the great tragedy of Irish history.
Quote from: Orior on January 13, 2012, 11:34:32 AM
Confusing times for OWCers. I guess their options will be
1) Realise they are actualy Irish.
2) Try to join a United Scotland.
3) Try to join a United England.
4) Fight for an Independant Six Counties.
It would be interesting to pidgeonhole various unionists into the above categories. For example Jeffrey Donaldson would be category 3.
I doubt that if the Scottish gained independence they'd opt for a new union with Norn Iron!
As for option 4, I don't imagine anyone would consider this to be financially viable.
Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 13, 2012, 07:52:52 PM
I've always thought the failure of the United Irishmen was the great tragedy of Irish history.
You're not the only one.
Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 13, 2012, 07:52:52 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2012, 07:14:11 PM
What I find interesting about the Scottish and Welsh nationalists is that they seem to have been largely untainted by religion, although it probably helps that Britain is a less religious place than Ireland.
To the extent that the sectarian issues in Scotland are seen as "an Irish problem", and are very alien to people from outside West Central Scotland. The 'religious' bampots in Scotland cling on to the flags and emblems of the Irish conflict, although naturally those that identify as Loyalists will have a certain view of the debate in Scotland.
The heartland of SNP support has traditionally the North East - a traditionally prosperous rural area with a streak of conservative communitarianism, but still open to the world through the trading and fishing fleets (and enthusiastic participant in the empire through The Gordons). Our history's different, our circumstances and motivations are different, and (hopefully) the way we leave the union will be different.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2012, 07:14:11 PMIt's a shame that Irish nationalism came to be so heavily identified with catholics and the religious and political labels of protestant/unionist and catholic/nationalist became so interchangeable.
Divide and rule. As an outsider, I've always thought the failure of the United Irishmen was the great tragedy of Irish history.
England was so powerful in 1798. It ruled over a massive empire. It has money to buy the best weaponry and afterwards buy off its enemies . The united Irishmen had no chance.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/1/10/1326154779597/Steve-Bell-cartoon-004.jpg)
Quote from: seafoid on January 13, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
The wee six is financially dependent on the tit of the UK exchequer and has no chance of
going it alone as an independent statelet.
Not the only part of Ireland to need the UK exchequer i think.
QuoteMary Kenny: Scottish 'divorce' will throw North's identity into chaos
Monday January 16 2012
Sport often reveals true feelings about national loyalties. When the Scots watch an international game, their allegiance is usually to "anyone but England".
But when Rangers play Celtic, which side raises a Scottish nationalist flag? Neither. Rangers considers itself "British" and flies a Union Jack while Celtic is characterised as Irish, and flies the Tricolour.
The sovereignty of a nation is complicated, as Alex Salmond and his ScotNats will surely find out. And a largely unconsidered angle in the looming referendum on whether the United Kingdom will break up if Scotland becomes independent is the impact on Northern Ireland.
Ulster Unionists have always championed the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but their more particular attachment has been to Scotland rather than to England.
The late Ulster historian A T Q Stewart showed in his research how close the links were between Northern Ireland and Scotland, dubbing those 33 miles of water between the two "the narrow ground". In mediaeval times, when land was thickly forested, it was easier to sail between Larne and Stranraer than to penetrate forest.
So it is an old bond. The university that Ulster Protestants most aspire to is neither Queens in Belfast nor Trinity in Dublin, but St Andrew's in Scotland.
But if Scotland should quit the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where does that leave the Ulster Unionists?
Orphaned, basically. If their closest kinsmen within the United Kingdom spurn the UK, they are out on a limb. What would remain would be England and Wales, as one devolved entity, and a separate Scotland.
The referendum that could detach Scotland from England is set for 2014. If Alex Salmond cannot be sure of a "yes" vote for Scottish independence, he and his able deputy Nicola Sturgeon are nonetheless riding high in confidence and a growing awareness of Scottish identity.
The break-up of Scotland and England is being likened to a divorce, or possibly an agreed separation. Divorce means total dissolution. The other option, "Devo Max", or maximum devolution, would be more like a civilised agreement for the partners to live separate lives.
Total separation means full Scottish autonomy, and the end of the UK. "Devo-max" is Home Rule -- Scotland having much greater control over its own affairs, but retaining the Crown, attachment to sterling and shared British institutions.
Again, where does all this leave allegiances in Northern Ireland? Some moderate Ulster Unionists have traditionally seen themselves as both Irish and British (and they cheer for the Irish rugby team). But if there is no such thing as "British" any more, where is the Ulster Unionist identity?
The break-up of a political union is no small thing, because treaties, customs, languages and cultures get knitted together over the centuries and there are shared memories, which go way back -- the Highland regiments fighting for the Crown, or the extraordinary number of Scots who were the engineers of the British Empire.
There are celebrity endorsements on both sides, with Sean Connery, painter Jack Vettriano and novelist James Kelman as the best-known advocates for Scottish independence, while Billy Connolly and Ewan McGregor reject such "narrow nationalism".
Labour voters in Scotland are more opposed to nationalism, and maintain a historic sense of solidarity with their English comrades.
Yet for all his confident talk of an independent Scotland, Mr Salmond can be cautious. He no longer boasts about the "arc of prosperity", which would range from Scotland to Ireland and Iceland. Irish independence, though democratically supported, was bought dear -- and, in the end, total sovereignty usually eludes small nations.
Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon are proud of the generous welfare state Scotland offers -- free universities, free care for the elderly -- but once they control their own revenues entirely, they will find that budgets have to be met. Even if they claw back the revenues from North Sea oil, they will miss the subsidies that come from England.
There is one opportunity that the Scottish referendum could open for Ireland: maybe now is the time to claim Rockall, that set of rocks between Ulster and Scotland beneath whose base lie rich deposits of oil.
If "Britain" ceases to exist, Rockall surely qualifies as Irish territory. But which flag will it fly? The Tricolour or the Red Hand of Ulster?
Irish Independent
QuoteTotal separation means full Scottish autonomy, and the end of the UK. "Devo-max" is Home Rule -- Scotland having much greater control over its own affairs, but retaining the Crown, attachment to sterling and shared British institutions.
Both the Crown and Sterling are to be maintained under independence as well. An ill-informed piece.
I find it hard to believe that the natural home of Ulster Protestants on the mainland is St. Andrews University. Its an English exclave full of private school sloaney types.
As a Scot, I wouldn't say that Ulster Protestants are particular kinsmen of mine. Outwith a certain of type of rangers supporter, I can't think of any Scot that would see them as our closest relatives. Through our own history of emigration, I feel a greater connection with the Canadians and Kiwis than I would with an Ulsterman.
Ulster-Scots may be a dialect of my language, but its very different to the the doric spoken at home.
All in all, I hope the Ulster Protestants don't look at us for unity or kinship, because it just isn't there. We don't don't like them, we don't dislike them - we simply don't think about them.
I've got a feeling that this article's sh*te and that EG and nifan will back me up on this.
Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 16, 2012, 08:48:01 PM
I find it hard to believe that the natural home of Ulster Protestants on the mainland is St. Andrews University. Its an English exclave full of private school sloaney types.
As a Scot, I wouldn't say that Ulster Protestants are particular kinsmen of mine. Outwith a certain of type of rangers supporter, I can't think of any Scot that would see them as our closest relatives. Through our own history of emigration, I feel a greater connection with the Canadians and Kiwis than I would with an Ulsterman.
Ulster-Scots may be a dialect of my language, but its very different to the the doric spoken at home.
All in all, I hope the Ulster Protestants don't look at us for unity or kinship, because it just isn't there. We don't don't like them, we don't dislike them - we simply don't think about them.
I've got a feeling that this article's sh*te and that EG and nifan will back me up on this.
Would it not be the case that there are stronger links between the SW of Scotland and Ulster Protestants?
I don't think you need to look that far to see that there are huge gaps in this piece by Kenny. The possible independence of Scotland does ask some very interesting questions of the Unionists in Northern Ireland, however I don't think that article answers any, or indeed asks the right questions.
Much as many Scots see themselves as British and Scottish the same is true for a substantial number of people in Northern Ireland, I don't think that a referendum has any change in perception of identity, and no matter how you feel about it, the nationality question in both Northern Ireland and Scotland is about sense of identity. However the referendum will not be conducted on that basis, if the SNP wish to carry the day, the issue will be about self interest, the case must be made that the people of Scotland will be better off outside of London government. The odds on invasion and an alliance of military needs is not going to be perceived as relevant, so the push will be on the economy and the budget, and a government that is concerned with the local issues and interest. In the end of it, all politics are local. The EU and membership of the EU already carries enough big brother for Scotland, the need for the UK as another step removed from the seat of power and ability to decide issues for themselves.
No matter how rose tinted your views of Irish Nationalism, any vote for a united Ireland would need to have many Unionists convinced that a vote for a united Ireland would be in their own best interest. Good Luck with that right now.
And equally no matter how convinced you are that Northern Ireland's place is in the United Kingdom the lack of embrace of the Nationalist population by the Unionist political parties leaves the nationalists aspirational to a United Ireland.
The current brace of politicians both North and South of the border are unable to run a raffle let alone a country. Unless there is a huge jump in the calibre of individual involved in politics in this Ireland, the status quo will remain in place for a long time to come.
Quote from: michaelg on January 16, 2012, 09:24:27 PM
Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 16, 2012, 08:48:01 PM
I find it hard to believe that the natural home of Ulster Protestants on the mainland is St. Andrews University. Its an English exclave full of private school sloaney types.
As a Scot, I wouldn't say that Ulster Protestants are particular kinsmen of mine. Outwith a certain of type of rangers supporter, I can't think of any Scot that would see them as our closest relatives. Through our own history of emigration, I feel a greater connection with the Canadians and Kiwis than I would with an Ulsterman.
Ulster-Scots may be a dialect of my language, but its very different to the the doric spoken at home.
All in all, I hope the Ulster Protestants don't look at us for unity or kinship, because it just isn't there. We don't don't like them, we don't dislike them - we simply don't think about them.
I've got a feeling that this article's sh*te and that EG and nifan will back me up on this.
Would it not be the case that there are stronger links between the SW of Scotland and Ulster Protestants?
Probably, although it could be argued that there's been links between the SW of Scotland and the NE of Ireland long before the plantation.
Most Scots would find Ulster Unionist culture a strange and alien thing (and, of course, the taint of Glasgow bigotry further reduces it's appeal outside of parts of Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire)
i think the writer's making the classic mistake that because the old firm dominate the sports pages, they say something about the wider nation.
Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 16, 2012, 09:46:30 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 16, 2012, 09:24:27 PM
Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 16, 2012, 08:48:01 PM
I find it hard to believe that the natural home of Ulster Protestants on the mainland is St. Andrews University. Its an English exclave full of private school sloaney types.
As a Scot, I wouldn't say that Ulster Protestants are particular kinsmen of mine. Outwith a certain of type of rangers supporter, I can't think of any Scot that would see them as our closest relatives. Through our own history of emigration, I feel a greater connection with the Canadians and Kiwis than I would with an Ulsterman.
Ulster-Scots may be a dialect of my language, but its very different to the the doric spoken at home.
All in all, I hope the Ulster Protestants don't look at us for unity or kinship, because it just isn't there. We don't don't like them, we don't dislike them - we simply don't think about them.
I've got a feeling that this article's sh*te and that EG and nifan will back me up on this.
Would it not be the case that there are stronger links between the SW of Scotland and Ulster Protestants?
Probably, although it could be argued that there's been links between the SW of Scotland and the NE of Ireland long before the plantation.
Most Scots would find Ulster Unionist culture a strange and alien thing (and, of course, the taint of Glasgow bigotry further reduces it's appeal outside of parts of Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire)
i think the writer's making the classic mistake that because the old firm dominate the sports pages, they say something about the wider nation.
Are there not close ties / links in relation to religion (Presbyterianism), use of language, pipe bands, country dancing etc - Hard to see how these elements of Ulster Unionist culture would be an alien thing?
Quote from: michaelg on January 16, 2012, 10:04:45 PM
Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 16, 2012, 09:46:30 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 16, 2012, 09:24:27 PM
Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 16, 2012, 08:48:01 PM
I find it hard to believe that the natural home of Ulster Protestants on the mainland is St. Andrews University. Its an English exclave full of private school sloaney types.
As a Scot, I wouldn't say that Ulster Protestants are particular kinsmen of mine. Outwith a certain of type of rangers supporter, I can't think of any Scot that would see them as our closest relatives. Through our own history of emigration, I feel a greater connection with the Canadians and Kiwis than I would with an Ulsterman.
Ulster-Scots may be a dialect of my language, but its very different to the the doric spoken at home.
All in all, I hope the Ulster Protestants don't look at us for unity or kinship, because it just isn't there. We don't don't like them, we don't dislike them - we simply don't think about them.
I've got a feeling that this article's sh*te and that EG and nifan will back me up on this.
Would it not be the case that there are stronger links between the SW of Scotland and Ulster Protestants?
Probably, although it could be argued that there's been links between the SW of Scotland and the NE of Ireland long before the plantation.
Most Scots would find Ulster Unionist culture a strange and alien thing (and, of course, the taint of Glasgow bigotry further reduces it's appeal outside of parts of Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire)
i think the writer's making the classic mistake that because the old firm dominate the sports pages, they say something about the wider nation.
Are there not close ties / links in relation to religion (Presbyterianism), use of language, pipe bands, country dancing etc - Hard to see how these elements of Ulster Unionist culture would be an alien thing?
Scotland's a broadly secular place, religion certainly doesn't have the influence it used to, except in places like Lewis, where the Ulstermen would feel uncomfortable by the fact that the locals spoke Gaidhlig!
Despite the name "Ulster-Scots", the language isn't that similar to the Scots spoken on the mainland, and the vocabulary is certainly different. Country dancing isn't unique to Scotland and NI and neither are pipe bands. Again, we'd tend to associate Ulster Protestant culture more with flute bands than pipe bands.
Doesn't every almost military in the world have a pipe band, including the PDF?
http://www.teachcruachan.com/3115.html (http://www.teachcruachan.com/3115.html)
Achill has a long tradition of piping, and each village has its own pipe band. There is friendly rivalry between them on St Patrick's Day every year.
Quote from: muppet on January 16, 2012, 10:19:18 PM
http://www.teachcruachan.com/3115.html (http://www.teachcruachan.com/3115.html)
Achill has a long tradition of piping, and each village has its own pipe band. There is friendly rivalry between them on St Patrick's Day every year.
So it's those Mayo Catholics that'll be wanting to join us next :D
Are there not close ties / links in relation to religion (Presbyterianism), use of language, pipe bands, country dancing etc - Hard to see how these elements of Ulster Unionist culture would be an alien thing?
[/quote]
Scotland's a broadly secular place, religion certainly doesn't have the influence it used to, except in places like Lewis, where the Ulstermen would feel uncomfortable by the fact that the locals spoke Gaidhlig!
Despite the name "Ulster-Scots", the language isn't that similar to the Scots spoken on the mainland, and the vocabulary is certainly different. Country dancing isn't unique to Scotland and NI and neither are pipe bands. Again, we'd tend to associate Ulster Protestant culture more with flute bands than pipe bands.
Doesn't every almost military in the world have a pipe band, including the PDF?
[/quote]
Surely language used in NI and Scotland would still be much more silimilar than comparisons between language used in Scotland vs the ROI and in language used in Scotland vs England
In addition, I never said that pipe band music and country dancing were unique to Scotland and NI - I was simly saying that their prevalence in NI would mean that Ulster Unuionist culture would not necessarily be an alien thing to most Scots
Quote from: LondonCamanachd on January 16, 2012, 09:46:30 PM
Most Scots would find Ulster Unionist culture a strange and alien thing
To be fair, a lot of unionists would find the 'unionist culture' a strange an alien thing. Just look at the level of interest in Ulster Scots. Niche to say the least.
Quote from: michaelg on January 16, 2012, 10:30:01 PM
Surely language used in NI and Scotland would still be much more silimilar than comparisons between language used in Scotland vs the ROI and in language used in Scotland vs England
None of them as close as the language used in Northern Ireland vs Republic of Ireland though?
Quote from: michaelg on January 16, 2012, 10:30:01 PM
Are there not close ties / links in relation to religion (Presbyterianism), use of language, pipe bands, country dancing etc - Hard to see how these elements of Ulster Unionist culture would be an alien thing?
Scotland's a broadly secular place, religion certainly doesn't have the influence it used to, except in places like Lewis, where the Ulstermen would feel uncomfortable by the fact that the locals spoke Gaidhlig!
Despite the name "Ulster-Scots", the language isn't that similar to the Scots spoken on the mainland, and the vocabulary is certainly different. Country dancing isn't unique to Scotland and NI and neither are pipe bands. Again, we'd tend to associate Ulster Protestant culture more with flute bands than pipe bands.
Doesn't every almost military in the world have a pipe band, including the PDF?
[/quote]
Surely language used in NI and Scotland would still be much more silimilar than comparisons between language used in Scotland vs the ROI and in language used in Scotland vs England
In addition, I never said that pipe band music and country dancing were unique to Scotland and NI - I was simly saying that their prevalence in NI would mean that Ulster Unuionist culture would not necessarily be an alien thing to most Scots
[/quote]
Maybe, I didn't realise there was a prevalence of pipe bands in NI.
The language thing depends a bit on where you are in Scotland. The dialect that i speak has more in common with the Northumbrian dialects in England, and has been heavily influenced by the Germanic languages of the Low Countries and Scandinavia. Somebody more familiar with the dialects in SW Scotland might be be able to give you a better comparison of Ullans and Lallans.
Who knows, perhaps if I went to protestant areas of Ulster I'd feel right at home!
Meanwhile, on this side of the Irish Sea...
An old vision of a new Ireland
By Former RUC inspector and Tuesday Journal columnist Norman Hamill.
Published on Friday 13 January 2012 11:02
Ahead of the Uniting Ireland conference in the Millennium Forum at the end of the month, organised by Sinn Féin, former RUC inspector Norman Hamill writes that the partition of Ireland was a mistake for unionists and argues that it is not to late to build a modern, inclusive, re-unified nation.
Wouldn't it be good to put an end the long conflict between Orange and Green?
The Good Friday Agreement is an interim solution. It's a big step along the way. We can choose our national identity. We can see ourselves as Irish or British or both. Structures are in place to safeguard our differing identities. The big questions about the longer term can be left to the democratic process.
Unionists and nationalists are free to seek support for their respective causes. Those of us who want to see the re-unification of Ireland have the chance, hopefully in a non-threatening atmosphere, to try to win new friends and to influence new people. It's an opportunity we would be foolish to waste.
The Society of United Irishmen was founded in Belfast in 1791. Its leading members were Presbyterians. Their aim was to unite Irishmen of all creeds to achieve reform and to break the link with England. In Tone's famous words they wanted, "to substitute the common name of Irishmen in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter". While it is true that the majority of Presbyterians were much less radical, even today a fair number of Presbyterians, including myself, are proud that their ancestors were active in the revolutionary movement, even though more recent ancestors tended to be unionists. (One kinsman escaped from the army by floating down the Bann in a barrel.)
Is it a paradox that an ex-cop can express admiration for ancestors who played their part in the 'armed struggle'? I can only say that at as a police officer I wasn't following any political agenda. In any case, I'm a republican of the constitutional variety.
The partition of this island was a mistake for unionists, an injustice for nationalists and a tragedy for Ireland.
For unionists it was a mistake, although they did have rational concerns. Their fear that "Home rule would be Rome Rule" was substantially vindicated. Nationalist Ireland didn't really try to separate church and state. Politicians were overly deferential to the bishops. Could this have happened if partition hadn't happened?
I don't think so. A confident and assertive, much larger Protestant minority would have secured genuinely pluralist independence. Instead, unionists demeaned themselves by allowing themselves to be motivated by fear. They clung to the coat tails of their already out-of-date notion of England. The English didn't want them and felt no reciprocal loyalty to them.
The people of this island have the right to determine their own future without interference.
For this reason, nationalists who found themselves within the separated area had a real sense of injustice.
Lastly, partition was a tragedy for Ireland because it distorted both parts of the country. The south initially became a narrow, right-of-centre, agrarian theocracy. Meanwhile, the north acquired its "Protestant parliament for a Protestant people". It became an unhealthy statelet contaminated by sectarianism. Without partition, a genuinely pluralist nation would have developed much sooner. And diversity could have been the 'salt' to ensure higher standards in public life.
Despite today's grave financial crisis, the Republic's modern industrial base remains strong.
The north no longer has an industrial base. Most unionists don't realise that, despite a slow start, self-government in Ireland has been an economic success.
It's not too late to put things right. Both parts of the country have grown further and further apart but we shouldn't give up on the vision of a modern, tolerant, successful and re-united Ireland.
http://www.derryjournal.com/news/local/an_old_vision_of_a_new_ireland_1_3416699
He has a very valid point: partition entrenched polarisation, facilitating and reinforcing the extremists on both sides of the border.
Good article that.
Vital point Mary Kenny misses in her article - Rockall is Scottish...Inverness-shire I believe ;)
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 16, 2012, 10:32:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 16, 2012, 10:30:01 PM
Surely language used in NI and Scotland would still be much more silimilar than comparisons between language used in Scotland vs the ROI and in language used in Scotland vs England
None of them as close as the language used in Northern Ireland vs Republic of Ireland though?
Perhaps - Would there not, though, be significant differences between use of language / terms used etc in N.Ireland and Cork or Kerry?
Hamill's spot on. Partition led to a prod state for a prod people in the north and a taig state for a taig people in the south. If all 32 counties had seceded from the UK the new state would have been much more balanced. In the south you wouldn't have had the Magdalene laundries or education and social services outsourced to a paedophile ring, and in the north you wouldn't have had "catholics need not apply" job ads.
Quote from: michaelg on January 16, 2012, 10:52:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 16, 2012, 10:32:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 16, 2012, 10:30:01 PM
Surely language used in NI and Scotland would still be much more silimilar than comparisons between language used in Scotland vs the ROI and in language used in Scotland vs England
None of them as close as the language used in Northern Ireland vs Republic of Ireland though?
Perhaps - Would there not, though, be significant differences between use of language / terms used etc in N.Ireland and Cork or Kerry?
There are indeed. Have you ever heard someone from Kerry say 'committee'?
Previous Hamill quote
http://www.derryjournal.com/community/columnists/i_ve_been_out_of_my_sectarian_comfort_zone_for_a_while_1_2133443
A recent article in this column on the link-up between the Ulster Unionist Party and David Cameron's Tories sparked-off a debate on the Slugger O'Toole political web site.
Most comment was favourable but one contributor said something to the effect that it was interesting to see Hamill out of his "sectarian comfort zone."
One of my troubles is that I haven't had a sectarian comfort zone for almost as long as I can remember. I only have a sectarian discomfort zone. In our tribal society, anyone from one political tradition who agrees with the other is unlikely to be comfortable. My family background is Protestant and broadly unionist but I believe the ultimate solution to some of our political problems lies in the creation of a fully sovereign united Ireland.
Such a view isn't exactly wildly popular amongst some Protestants and I'm always vulnerable to a charge of trying to ingratiate myself with "the other side". In another sense, it's a liberating place to be. Why inch forward painfully for years towards the only real solution when the big step we need to take is already perfectly obvious?
On the other hand, if I'd tried harder to stay in my little box at least one reader would have been denied a certain pleasure. Maybe we should all just give up on trying to help this little sectarian place and just stick to our labels.
What an interesting character. Who is this lad?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 16, 2012, 10:54:32 PM
. In the south you wouldn't have had the Magdalene laundries or education and social services outsourced to a paedophile ring,
Kincora ;)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 16, 2012, 10:54:32 PM
Hamill's spot on. Partition led to a prod state for a prod people in the north and a taig state for a taig people in the south. If all 32 counties had seceded from the UK the new state would have been much more balanced. In the south you wouldn't have had the Magdalene laundries or education and social services outsourced to a paedophile ring, and in the north you wouldn't have had "catholics need not apply" job ads.
Yeah, you would have just had a bloodbath of Biblical proportions. Unionism's great Keyser Soze trick (aided and abetted in recent times by the Provos) is to get people to forget the armageddon they promised if they were forced into a united Ireland. And if the Curragh mutiny was anything to go by, the best Irish Nationalism could have hoped for would be the Brits standing by - worst case scenario being them joining in the carnage.
There was a civil war anyway.
Quote from: deiseach on January 17, 2012, 03:41:15 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 16, 2012, 10:54:32 PM
Hamill's spot on. Partition led to a prod state for a prod people in the north and a taig state for a taig people in the south. If all 32 counties had seceded from the UK the new state would have been much more balanced. In the south you wouldn't have had the Magdalene laundries or education and social services outsourced to a paedophile ring, and in the north you wouldn't have had "catholics need not apply" job ads.
Yeah, you would have just had a bloodbath of Biblical proportions. Unionism's great Keyser Soze trick (aided and abetted in recent times by the Provos) is to get people to forget the armageddon they promised if they were forced into a united Ireland. And if the Curragh mutiny was anything to go by, the best Irish Nationalism could have hoped for would be the Brits standing by - worst case scenario being them joining in the carnage.
I was thinking thee article took a very optimistic view of the "What-if?" there. I just can't see how a fledgling 32-county state would have stood up to the competing pressures.
Option 1 - "The long war" in the six counties, only this time round it's loyalists attacking the instruments of the Irish state;
Option 2 - A longer, bloodier Irish Civil War that ends in partition and reunification for part of the island;
Option 3 - A longer, bloodier civil war, ending with an independent statelet that loathes its southern neighbours, and the Brits for the betrayal of 1920?
Yeah, I don't think any option would have been without its difficulties.