1981 remembered

[Applesisapples]

Ulster Unionists are not a homogeneous 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 siege mentality 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Further, you fall into the trap of seizing upon particular historical references to support your thesis, without considering other aspects which contradict it.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...)

Whatever about today, the primary motivating factor in the northeast of this island for maintaining the Union was religion and fear of domination by the Catholic state. Granted your reasons today for remaining within the Union may have broadened out and many Catholics today accept the Union for socio-economic reasons. However you cannot deny that the whole Orange statelet was not originally intended as a protestant state for protestant people. True political Unionists in 1922 would not have demanded their own Parliament.

[Evil Genius]

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.

Re Milliband's comment, as (non-SNP) Scots have begun to consider the full consequences of independence, they may be getting more concerned by what they will lose ("Britishness"), than what they will gain (self-determination).

Therefore in order to reassure them, Salmond/SNP is trying to have it both ways, by claiming that Scots will still remain "British", even after independence. To support this claim, he cites Sweden, Denmark and Norway, who remain "Scandinavian", despite being politically separate.

I consider this a bogus analogy, since "Scandinavianness" is hardly much more than a mere geographical expression, unlike Britishness, which has much wider political, social, economic and cultural resonance.

In fact, I was disappointed that no-one thought to ask him whether he considered the people of the Irish Free State to still be "British" after they seceded from the Union in 1921... 

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.

There is no doubt in my mind that a Scottish breakaway would prompt a general re-think about the Union.

However it would all be such uncharted territory (pun unintended), that I'd hesitate to predict what new consequences might follow.

As regards English Nationalism, I'm not sure it would "surge". On the contrary, having got rid of those "troublesome Scots" perhaps the English might not feel the need to emphasise their own identity so much, esp since England would then dominate the Union even more.

Welsh Nationalism, meantime, might get a boost but in truth, the Nats there have so much ground to make up that I doubt it would prove a tipping point.

And as for NI, so long as soldiers aren't being killed etc, the only argument for England "pulling the plug" would be economic. but here, people overlook two things. First, NI only accounts for 3% of UK population, so the amount of subsidy that NI receives over and above their per capita share can only be a small fraction of that figure and therefore a tiny fraction of the overall Budget.

Never mind that the (rump) UK would be saving money that they currently to Scotland as their subsidy. But could anyone really justify cutting the additional subsidy to NI, which must be less than 1% of the overall UK Budget and is designed to raise up a less prosperous region of this country, whilst continuing to give eg 0.7% of the UK budget in Overseas Aid, including to relatively self-sufficient countries like India?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/28/overseas-aid-budget-cut-andrew-mitchell-lords_n_1384800.html

But in any case, unless Westminster/England really screws things up in the meantime, I really don't believe the Scots will opt to leave the Union.

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

In my experience, most people in London have little or no idea of what goes on North of Watford, never mind in the North of Ireland.

Which considering fully one third of Londoners were born outside the UK, is not maybe so surprising:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349117/Migration-wave-means-Londoners-born-abroad.html

Anyhow, it's what it says on my Passport which counts, not your tin... 

It could get very interesting.

Interesting, maybe, but I wouldn't build my hopes too high, if I were you.

[sheamy]

EG, what exactly is it about the English you like so much?

[Jim_Murphy_74]

...North of Ireland...........

If you are using the above phrase I think you are spending too much time around here...........

/Jim

[Evil Genius]

EG, what exactly is it about the English you like so much?

Lots of things, certainly many more than those things which I dislike. In particular, I especially appreciate their tolerance, which is why I can't complain about the latter (my dislikes).

And as someone who cannot easily be mistaken for being English myself (at least anytime I open my mouth!), they seem to like me well enough, so it's only reasonable that I should return the compliment.

Then again, I tend to like people wherever I go. I've been lucky enough to have travelled quite a bit, to many different countries om several continents, including a couple of extended stays (USA and France).

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say the only people I've really not been too fussed by were French-Canadians, though I wouldn't put it any stronger than that. Meanwhile people in the rest of Canada are some of the best people you could meet anywhere.

P.S. I also like the Scots, Welsh and Irish (NI and ROI).

[Evil Genius]

...North of Ireland...........

If you are using the above phrase I think you are spending too much time around here...........

/Jim

Actually I saw Alex Attwood on TV the other day and could swear he said "Northern Ireland"  - possibly twice!

Therefore it was just my way of acknowledging the enormity and magnanimity of his grand gesture...

[Applesisapples]

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.

Re Milliband's comment, as (non-SNP) Scots have begun to consider the full consequences of independence, they may be getting more concerned by what they will lose ("Britishness"), than what they will gain (self-determination).

Therefore in order to reassure them, Salmond/SNP is trying to have it both ways, by claiming that Scots will still remain "British", even after independence. To support this claim, he cites Sweden, Denmark and Norway, who remain "Scandinavian", despite being politically separate.

I consider this a bogus analogy, since "Scandinavianness" is hardly much more than a mere geographical expression, unlike Britishness, which has much wider political, social, economic and cultural resonance.

In fact, I was disappointed that no-one thought to ask him whether he considered the people of the Irish Free State to still be "British" after they seceded from the Union in 1921... 

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.

There is no doubt in my mind that a Scottish breakaway would prompt a general re-think about the Union.

However it would all be such uncharted territory (pun unintended), that I'd hesitate to predict what new consequences might follow.

As regards English Nationalism, I'm not sure it would "surge". On the contrary, having got rid of those "troublesome Scots" perhaps the English might not feel the need to emphasise their own identity so much, esp since England would then dominate the Union even more.

Welsh Nationalism, meantime, might get a boost but in truth, the Nats there have so much ground to make up that I doubt it would prove a tipping point.

And as for NI, so long as soldiers aren't being killed etc, the only argument for England "pulling the plug" would be economic. but here, people overlook two things. First, NI only accounts for 3% of UK population, so the amount of subsidy that NI receives over and above their per capita share can only be a small fraction of that figure and therefore a tiny fraction of the overall Budget.

Never mind that the (rump) UK would be saving money that they currently to Scotland as their subsidy. But could anyone really justify cutting the additional subsidy to NI, which must be less than 1% of the overall UK Budget and is designed to raise up a less prosperous region of this country, whilst continuing to give eg 0.7% of the UK budget in Overseas Aid, including to relatively self-sufficient countries like India?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/28/overseas-aid-budget-cut-andrew-mitchell-lords_n_1384800.html

But in any case, unless Westminster/England really screws things up in the meantime, I really don't believe the Scots will opt to leave the Union.

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

In my experience, most people in London have little or no idea of what goes on North of Watford, never mind in the North of Ireland.

Which considering fully one third of Londoners were born outside the UK, is not maybe so surprising:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349117/Migration-wave-means-Londoners-born-abroad.html

Anyhow, it's what it says on my Passport which counts, not your tin... 

It could get very interesting.

Interesting, maybe, but I wouldn't build my hopes too high, if I were you.

Irish people have never been and aren't now British, as they weren't boron on the Island of Britain, so Mr Salmond is correct. People from NI in some cases may feel British but actually if you check it is the UK of Britain and NI (Ireland pre 1922).

[Evil Genius]

Irish people have never been and aren't now British, as they weren't boron on the Island of Britain, so Mr Salmond is correct. People from NI in some cases may feel British but actually if you check it is the UK of Britain and NI (Ireland pre 1922).

The Good Friday Agreement, negotiated over several years by all participants to the dispute, legally recognised in all international forums, and overwhelmingly endorsed by the majority of people in all parts of Ireland, specifically recognises:

"... the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"
http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf

Are you claiming that you know better? 

[Applesisapples]

Irish people have never been and aren't now British, as they weren't boron on the Island of Britain, so Mr Salmond is correct. People from NI in some cases may feel British but actually if you check it is the UK of Britain and NI (Ireland pre 1922).

The Good Friday Agreement, negotiated over several years by all participants to the dispute, legally recognised in all international forums, and overwhelmingly endorsed by the majority of people in all parts of Ireland, specifically recognises:

"... the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"
http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf

Are you claiming that you know better? 

Yep!

[Evil Genius]

Irish people have never been and aren't now British, as they weren't boron on the Island of Britain, so Mr Salmond is correct. People from NI in some cases may feel British but actually if you check it is the UK of Britain and NI (Ireland pre 1922).

The Good Friday Agreement, negotiated over several years by all participants to the dispute, legally recognised in all international forums, and overwhelmingly endorsed by the majority of people in all parts of Ireland, specifically recognises:

"... the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"
http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf

Are you claiming that you know better? 

Yep!

And I am the one who gets accused, including by you, of being "arrogant", "triumphalist" and "stuck in the past" etc.

Oh, and a "leper" sic as well   

[AQMP]

...North of Ireland...........

If you are using the above phrase I think you are spending too much time around here...........

/Jim

Actually I saw Alex Attwood on TV the other day and could swear he said "Northern Ireland"  - possibly twice!

Therefore it was just my way of acknowledging the enormity and magnanimity of his grand gesture...

It's progress that Alex does now say at least two words that most people understand!

[Applesisapples]

Irish people have never been and aren't now British, as they weren't boron on the Island of Britain, so Mr Salmond is correct. People from NI in some cases may feel British but actually if you check it is the UK of Britain and NI (Ireland pre 1922).

The Good Friday Agreement, negotiated over several years by all participants to the dispute, legally recognised in all international forums, and overwhelmingly endorsed by the majority of people in all parts of Ireland, specifically recognises:

"... the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"
http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf

Are you claiming that you know better? 

Yep!

And I am the one who gets accused, including by you, of being "arrogant", "triumphalist" and "stuck in the past" etc.

Oh, and a "leper" sic as well   

You can call yourself British, feel British as you wish. The fact remains that unless you were born on or of parents who are from the island that is British then you are patently not British. The GFA may allow yourself to call yourself British and that is fine, but it doesn't change reality, you are a UK citizen, and Northern Irish, in the same way I am an Irish Citizen and Northern Irish.

[Evil Genius]

You can call yourself British, feel British as you wish. The fact remains that unless you were born on or of parents who are from the island that is British then you are patently not British. The GFA may allow yourself to call yourself British and that is fine, but it doesn't change reality, you are a UK citizen, and Northern Irish

I don't just "call myself" or "feel" British, I AM British, and you have no more right to deny me my birthright than I have to deny you yours.

Of course, if your objection is solely linguistic, I could call myself "United Kingdomish" rather than "British", and not even you could deny me that.

In fact, why not go the whole hog and rename the State the "United Queendom" whenever the Sovereign happens to be female? 

... in the same way I am an Irish Citizen and Northern Irish.

Yep, and residing in the (ahem) British Isles... 

[Applesisapples]

You can call yourself British, feel British as you wish. The fact remains that unless you were born on or of parents who are from the island that is British then you are patently not British. The GFA may allow yourself to call yourself British and that is fine, but it doesn't change reality, you are a UK citizen, and Northern Irish

I don't just "call myself" or "feel" British, I AM British, and you have no more right to deny me my birthright than I have to deny you yours.

Of course, if your objection is solely linguistic, I could call myself "United Kingdomish" rather than "British", and not even you could deny me that.

In fact, why not go the whole hog and rename the State the "United Queendom" whenever the Sovereign happens to be female? 

... in the same way I am an Irish Citizen and Northern Irish.

Yep, and residing in the (ahem) British Isles... 

Actually no, that is not strictly true either. But hey no big deal, you are what you feel. You fell like a Brit then thats fine by me...not that you need my consent...before you say it!

[Rossfan]

, I could call myself "United Kingdomish" rather than "British",

(y)UKish will do grand