1981 remembered

[Arthur_Friend]

Thanks, Myles, for clarifying your opinion of free verse.  On that topic , I agree with you then. And I also agree with EG that Gerry Kelly's poem is poor and at times is mere treacle.  And as for Bobby Sands being a writer, well I think we can agree that we probably wrote a lot.  As for its quality.  Let's say that the various samples excerpted here indicate a stylistic inconsistency.   But that matters little to me.  It's not as though he was seeking or was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

I do have to disagree with your view that he strengthened partition, a patently absurd belief.  It's not as though at that time N.I. was Usain Bolting towards reunification.  Quite the opposite.  In fact, I blame unionism's intransigence for birthing the IRA, those staunch one million who gave two fingers to democracy, a V sign they kept firmly in place for over half a century.

In fact, I would contend that unknowingly Bobby Sands' sacrifice actually accelerated the process of reunification, albeit at tortoise pace.  But better that than stasis.  Look at the aftermath of his action.  The IRA decommissioned its weapons, opted for democracy over destruction, favored talks over terror.  Far from strengthening partition, this strikes me as softening it.

If you believe that the Irish had a right to give 2 fingers to Britain and withdraw from the union, why then do you not allow the Ulster-British the same right to withhold their consent to being part of an independent Ireland? If self determination was good enough for the Irish, why not for the Ulster-British?

Do the Ulster-Irish have the same right to self-determination you afford the "Ulster-British"?

Go ask the Leinster, Munster and Connacht Irish who agreed the national territory boundaries at the time when the Irish self determination was being asserted.

I'm asking you for your opinion Myles.

[Myles Na G.]

Thanks, Myles, for clarifying your opinion of free verse.  On that topic , I agree with you then. And I also agree with EG that Gerry Kelly's poem is poor and at times is mere treacle.  And as for Bobby Sands being a writer, well I think we can agree that we probably wrote a lot.  As for its quality.  Let's say that the various samples excerpted here indicate a stylistic inconsistency.   But that matters little to me.  It's not as though he was seeking or was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

I do have to disagree with your view that he strengthened partition, a patently absurd belief.  It's not as though at that time N.I. was Usain Bolting towards reunification.  Quite the opposite.  In fact, I blame unionism's intransigence for birthing the IRA, those staunch one million who gave two fingers to democracy, a V sign they kept firmly in place for over half a century.

In fact, I would contend that unknowingly Bobby Sands' sacrifice actually accelerated the process of reunification, albeit at tortoise pace.  But better that than stasis.  Look at the aftermath of his action.  The IRA decommissioned its weapons, opted for democracy over destruction, favored talks over terror.  Far from strengthening partition, this strikes me as softening it.

If you believe that the Irish had a right to give 2 fingers to Britain and withdraw from the union, why then do you not allow the Ulster-British the same right to withhold their consent to being part of an independent Ireland? If self determination was good enough for the Irish, why not for the Ulster-British?

Do the Ulster-Irish have the same right to self-determination you afford the "Ulster-British"?

Go ask the Leinster, Munster and Connacht Irish who agreed the national territory boundaries at the time when the Irish self determination was being asserted.

I'm asking you for your opinion Myles.

You asked me about an ethnic group which doesn't exist -I'm plain, straightforward Irish, not Ulster-Irish. What next...Fermanagh-Irish?Tyrone - Irish? Since you're asking me to comment on non existent ethnic groups, I'm inviting you to go and talk to dead people. Sounds fair enough to me. For the record, the Irish are entitled to self determination and they have exercised that right. If you feel it's unfair that people, both Irish and British, ended up stranded on the wrong side of the border, then take it up with the people who forced the issue to such a point through violent action, then negotiated the treaty when they realised that what they'd set out to achieve wasn't obtainable through force of arms.

[Oraisteach]

Myles, I think you're guilty of a false equivalency.  Before partition, the vast majority of Irish voted for a united Ireland, a landslide by any reasonable electoral standard, but the unionist minority thumbed their nose at democracy, a trend that they stuck to with a religious fervor until very recently when it suited them.

Your reference to the union is altogether different, having nothing to do with democracy but instead  with colonial imposition.  Should all the other countries that have cast off the yoke of colonialism have carved out a chunk of their land for opponents of independence, so that "there's some corner of a foreign field / That is forever England" to hijack the words of Rupert Brooke.

And then you mock Arthur-Friend by asking him to enquire of the other provinces why they acquiesced to partition when armed struggle failed, an armed struggle that occurred because democracy was flouted.  Ironically, returning to the theme of 1981, a contemporary armed struggle happened once again because democracy was denied, and I write this as one who abhors violence and who values democracy not demagoguery and dictatorship.

And by the way, I'm delighted that you define yourself as straightforward Irish.  Many unionists would not do that either now or in the past, so I think we're making encouraging steps.

[Myles Na G.]

Myles, I think you're guilty of a false equivalency.  Before partition, the vast majority of Irish voted for a united Ireland, a landslide by any reasonable electoral standard, but the unionist minority thumbed their nose at democracy, a trend that they stuck to with a religious fervor until very recently when it suited them.

Your reference to the union is altogether different, having nothing to do with democracy but instead  with colonial imposition.  Should all the other countries that have cast off the yoke of colonialism have carved out a chunk of their land for opponents of independence, so that "there's some corner of a foreign field / That is forever England" to hijack the words of Rupert Brooke.

And then you mock Arthur-Friend by asking him to enquire of the other provinces why they acquiesced to partition when armed struggle failed, an armed struggle that occurred because democracy was flouted.  Ironically, returning to the theme of 1981, a contemporary armed struggle happened once again because democracy was denied, and I write this as one who abhors violence and who values democracy not demagoguery and dictatorship.

And by the way, I'm delighted that you define yourself as straightforward Irish.  Many unionists would not do that either now or in the past, so I think we're making encouraging steps.

The argument about a 'unionist minority' only holds good if you accept that Ireland is one country, rather than a single island inhabited by two sets of ethnic groups. If you believe, as most northern unionists do, that they are a separate ethnic group, then the vote in favour of independence was carried by a majority amongst one ethnic group only while being rejected by the other. What right do the native Irish have to impose their will on those who are British and wish to remain British? Exactly the same right, I would argue, that the British had to impose their will on the majority of people on this island who wanted nothing to do with them i.e no right at all. So we're back to my original question: if self determination is good enough for the Irish, why not for the Ulster-British?

Don't want to discourage you and your hopeful steps, but I'm not a unionist. My wife is though, and after 18 years of rubbing shoulders with a large set of Irish Catholic in laws, she still describes herself as British and hangs on to her British passport. If I can't persuade her that she's really Irish, I don't hold out much hope for the Shinners outreach project being any more successful.

[Arthur_Friend]

Thanks, Myles, for clarifying your opinion of free verse.  On that topic , I agree with you then. And I also agree with EG that Gerry Kelly's poem is poor and at times is mere treacle.  And as for Bobby Sands being a writer, well I think we can agree that we probably wrote a lot.  As for its quality.  Let's say that the various samples excerpted here indicate a stylistic inconsistency.   But that matters little to me.  It's not as though he was seeking or was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

I do have to disagree with your view that he strengthened partition, a patently absurd belief.  It's not as though at that time N.I. was Usain Bolting towards reunification.  Quite the opposite.  In fact, I blame unionism's intransigence for birthing the IRA, those staunch one million who gave two fingers to democracy, a V sign they kept firmly in place for over half a century.

In fact, I would contend that unknowingly Bobby Sands' sacrifice actually accelerated the process of reunification, albeit at tortoise pace.  But better that than stasis.  Look at the aftermath of his action.  The IRA decommissioned its weapons, opted for democracy over destruction, favored talks over terror.  Far from strengthening partition, this strikes me as softening it.

If you believe that the Irish had a right to give 2 fingers to Britain and withdraw from the union, why then do you not allow the Ulster-British the same right to withhold their consent to being part of an independent Ireland? If self determination was good enough for the Irish, why not for the Ulster-British?

Do the Ulster-Irish have the same right to self-determination you afford the "Ulster-British"?

Go ask the Leinster, Munster and Connacht Irish who agreed the national territory boundaries at the time when the Irish self determination was being asserted.

I'm asking you for your opinion Myles.

You asked me about an ethnic group which doesn't exist -I'm plain, straightforward Irish, not Ulster-Irish. What next...Fermanagh-Irish?Tyrone - Irish? Since you're asking me to comment on non existent ethnic groups, I'm inviting you to go and talk to dead people. Sounds fair enough to me. For the record, the Irish are entitled to self determination and they have exercised that right. If you feel it's unfair that people, both Irish and British, ended up stranded on the wrong side of the border, then take it up with the people who forced the issue to such a point through violent action, then negotiated the treaty when they realised that what they'd set out to achieve wasn't obtainable through force of arms.

First off, I was referring to the Irish within Ulster - not a separate ethnic group.

On your other point to Oraisteach, I think you'll find that Ireland joined the Union as a single country, and in fact under the Third Home Rule Bill was to stay in the Union albeit with self-governance.

One group armed itself to the teeth against this democratic process and it wasn't Pearse et al.

[Oraisteach]

Myles, if you're not unionist, what are you?  Nationalist?  Can you please explain.

[Myles Na G.]

Myles, if you're not unionist, what are you?  Nationalist?  Can you please explain.

I'm from an Irish nationalist background and would like to see a 32 county, independent Irish republic, but that doesn't mean that I believe that Irish nationalists 'own' the whole island or that northern unionists are simply a confused, embittered national minority. If we want to see a united Ireland, we'll have to convince a significant group of citizens who don't see themselves as belonging to the same tribe as the rest of us, that it's in their interests to cut the ties with their 'mainland' home and throw in their lot with a group they've previously regarded as hostile to their interests.

[Applesisapples]

Ulster Unionists are not a homogenous ethnic group. They are Unionists primarily through religion and not politics. Many of them would have Irish Ancestry stretching back to before the reformation and until the famine were Catholic. Many are of Scottish Presbyterian extraction and many of English Anglican extraction. They clung to their "Britishness" as a unifying factor, originally because they feared being swamped by the Papish Irish Majority on the Island and then when partition intervened they clung too it through a seige menatlity which was reinforced by the violent Republican conflict of the 70's and 80's. I am not justifying or condemning any of these things just pointing out the reality of what has happened.

[deiseach]

If you feel it's unfair that people, both Irish and British, ended up stranded on the wrong side of the border, then take it up with the people who forced the issue to such a point through violent action, then negotiated the treaty when they realised that what they'd set out to achieve wasn't obtainable through force of arms.

Myles, you're a reasonable chap. But that's an Animal Farm view of what has happened in Ireland. Partition was achieved by the force of arms and was maintained by the force of arms. Either Griffith et al signed the treaty or there would be "'immediate and terrible war" (Lloyd George). Later on, unarmed people who protested against the British state would be gunned down in the street and their families told that they deserved it by the law of the British state. The threat of violence has always been just as potent as violence itself, and Britain has rarely hesitated to use it throughout its history.

[seafoid]

There was an article in the guardian recently about what would happen if Scotland left the Union following a comment Miliband made , that if Scotland left then the Scots couldn't be called British any more.   The whole British construct came from the 1707 act of Union between Scotland and England/Wales.

If Scotland does go where will that leave the wee 6 ?

There would probably be a resurgence of English nationalism, the Welsh would start thinking and the English could well decide to pull the plug on the statelet around the Bann.

If you ask most people in London , people living in Norn Irn are Irish, not British. That is what is says on the tin. 

It could get very interesting.
 

[Minder]

There was an article in the guardian recently about what would happen if Scotland left the Union following a comment Miliband made , that if Scotland left then the Scots couldn't be called British any more.   The whole British construct came from the 1707 act of Union between Scotland and England/Wales.

If Scotland does go where will that leave the wee 6 ?

There would probably be a resurgence of English nationalism, the Welsh would start thinking and the English could well decide to pull the plug on the statelet around the Bann.

If you ask most people in London , people living in Norn Irn are Irish, not British. That is what is says on the tin. 

It could get very interesting.

There was a poll the other day among Scots and the "yes" for Independence had fallen to 35%

[Evil Genius]

Ulster Unionists are not a homogenous ethnic group. They are Unionists primarily through religion and not politics. Many of them would have Irish Ancestry stretching back to before the reformation and until the famine were Catholic. Many are of Scottish Presbyterian extraction and many of English Anglican extraction. They clung to their "Britishness" as a unifying factor, originally because they feared being swamped by the Papish Irish Majority on the Island and then when partition intervened they clung too it through a seige menatlity which was reinforced by the violent Republican conflict of the 70's and 80's. I am not justifying or condemning any of these things just pointing out the reality of what has happened.

Interesting.

For you see, I had always thought that I am a Unionist as the result of the following process, namely when encouraged by my family to see the Union as a good thing, I subsequently came to agree. (By contrast, when encouraged by them to see Religion as a good thing, I subsequently decided it was a load of old nonsense.)

As I see it, you are confusing how a political philosophy/movement arises, and how somebody joins and endorses that philosophy/movement subsequently.

Next, you assume that if a political movement is created and espoused by members of a particular religious community, then all members of that community will likely (inevitably?) remain adherents. This is contradicted eg by the Society of United Irishmen, which was largely founded by members of the same (Ulster-Scots) Presbyterians who had previously and subsequently espoused the British cause . Another example is found in the American War of Independence, when those same "Scotch Irish" who had emigrated to the New World were to fight on both sides of the conflict. And, of course, many in the Presbyterian and Anglican communities in Ireland and Scotland often supported the (vaguely Catholic) Royalist cause during the English Civil War, rather than (the strongly Protestant) Parliamentarians.

Further, you fall into the trap of seizing upon particular historical references to support your thesis, without considering other aspects which contradict it. For example, whilst it is true that Ulster Unionists have often clung to the Union out of naked self-interest, at times they have also done so for more 'positive' reasons, i.e. that the British State was more likely to guarantee Civil, Political and Religious Liberty than eg a (Catholic) Irish State dominated by France or Spain. (Another example is the British in Ireland throwing in their lot with their fellow Britons in GB, when the latter were threatened by Napoleon/Kaiser/Hitler, even though they might have kept out of it, in expectation that the British would lose).

Finally, you do not give credit to the ability of individuals to act independently of the historical narrative, which is a silly mistake if you think about it, since so many have little or no real knowledge of their own history, never mind that of others.

Still, as a Unionist, I should be glad that at I've got any number of Nationalists available to tell me who I am and what I believe (if the evidence of this Board is anything to go by, at any rate...)

[seafoid]

Times are tough across Europe and there isn't so much money sloshing around and long held assumptions are being revised and political choices about who to shaft are being made

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/19/breadline-britain-hungry-schoolchildren-breakfast

And just as Ireland will not be able to continue for much longer without shaping on on public spending, it is hard to see London funding Ulster indefinitely.

Why should Brixton subsidise Belfast ?   

[Rossfan]

, it is hard to see London funding Ulster indefinitely.

I'd say our lot would be happy to know they haven't to pay for Donegal,Cavan or Monaghan any more 

[Mike Sheehy]

There was an article in the guardian recently about what would happen if Scotland left the Union following a comment Miliband made , that if Scotland left then the Scots couldn't be called British any more.   The whole British construct came from the 1707 act of Union between Scotland and England/Wales.

If Scotland does go where will that leave the wee 6 ?

There would probably be a resurgence of English nationalism, the Welsh would start thinking and the English could well decide to pull the plug on the statelet around the Bann.

If you ask most people in London , people living in Norn Irn are Irish, not British. That is what is says on the tin. 

It could get very interesting.  

are there any jews around the Bann... ? It could get very interesting for them if you get your way !