“only thing the prime minister has to concern himself with..”
Mick has pointed to the actual debate to be had around Gordon Brown’s defence of the Union. But, rather than looking for complicated reasons and strategies behind Brown’s apparent playing down of Northern Ireland’s role in the United Kingdom, sometimes, as Henry McDonald suggests here, there’s a simpler reason for these things.
In his promotion of the union, not only in relation to Scotland but also Wales, the prime minister failed to mention Northern Ireland, which drew a wave of criticism from Ulster unionists and their supporters in the Tory press.Yet neither unionist politicians or their allies in the London media ought to be surprised over Brown’s omission of Northern Ireland – because the delicate political settlement that has guaranteed the union between the north of Ireland and Britain requires periods of diplomatic silence.
As Fair Deal has already noted here.
Unlike the printed version, the full online text of Brown’s article did mention Northern Ireland, but only in passing. And it’s a sufficiently fleeting a mention, compared to Wales and Scotland, to still support the argument made by Henry McDonald.
Unlike Scotland and Wales, Gordon Brown doesn’t have to compete for votes against other parties in Northern Ireland. That is because Labour doesn’t organise across the Irish Sea.
The only thing the prime minister has to concern himself with is that the political settlement at Stormont remains in place.
To trumpet the continued existence of Northern Ireland inside the UK would be to rub nationalist noses in it.
So instead the British government maintains radio silence on the north’s constitutional status.
TAF: If there is a Bloody Sunday commemoration anywhere, it will be called a ‘Bloody Sunday commemoration’ and won’t hide behind false names and false objectives. You carry on deluding yourself. The rest of us in both the UK and RoI are well aware of what ‘Love Ulster’ stands for. And believe me, the sentiment is very similar in both jurisdictions. Get the picture???
See how quickly you went form trying to tell me how welcome I’d be in a United Ireland to telling me what the score is and I’d better get used to it?
There’s one narrative permitted, and it aint mine.
I live these threads, because You, and people like you, never seem to grasp how you come across to me and people like me.
Ah well, at least it’s better than all those patronising posts telling me that I should wake up and realise that the English don’t want me.
Read what you like into my posts. A bit of a non-argument this. You’re going to be offended whatever I say. You’d still be welcome and safe here, ask any of your mates who have been here (I know many have, you must know one).
Imagine someone suggesting the next time there’s a Bloody Sunday commemoration in London that they better start showing posters of IRA victims or there’ll be a riot?
That’s not the way the UK operates, and I’m glad about that.
The UK, just like Ireland, operates like most other western European countries. As a result, it has those who like to attack marches for a variety of reasons.
Bloody Sunday commemoration marches in London have been attacked by thugs. But London is like Dublin and everyone just gets on with their lives and don’t harp on and on about a single event.
No doubt, you’ll be pleased to hear how a lot of those thugs who rioted in Dublin received pretty stiff prison sentences.
I was quite glad to hear that prison sentences were also handed out to some of those who attacked the Bloody Sunday march in London.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t stopped some of them, like Andrew Frain, from continuing to promote loyalist terror groups on the streets of London, while others, like Warren Glass, have been welcomed with open arms in Portadown.
But hey, some people never learn.
I’m in Scotland quite often and sense a quiet determination for constitutional progress – biggest barrier IMHO not the voting habits of Catholic Scotland (which are changing rapidly) but a folk memory of common (glorious!) wars. I think this might be changing.
Here it ain’t so advanced although Adam’s Price claim to inherit the Chartist’s legacy is excellent stuff. Wales a long time conquered and (slightly in jest) a folk memory of when we ruled Ynys Prydain. Progressing though.
One is clear, a referendum based on demographic and political change which will happen at least thirty years from now if at all. In that sense, Mick is right. Settled for now
Oh, really! I cannot help noticing that the number of Nationalist held Westminster seats has, in my lifetime, come up from 1 to 8. The 9th will almost certainly be North Belfast. While Nigel Dodds had a healthy majority of over 4000 in 2005, the 2007 Assembly elections showed that this was sliding. Adding together the DUP/UUP vote and the SF/SDLP vote, one finds that the former exceeds the latter by just 432 votes. Granted, there are nearly 10% of “others”, but counting the transfers from these does not change the picture at all, as far as I can see.
As there are only 18 seats, and 9 is half of that number, it should be noted that the whole Unionist majority at Westminster relies upon 432 votes- and that was last year. Another advantage is of course that Nationalists are more expert at splitting their vote than Unionists are. But this may be because Nationalists had no hope of winning anything anyway. The prize of 50% of the Westminster seats might cause a change of tactic.
So, in the context of a rapidly aging Protestant population and burgeoning youthful Catholic population in both North and South Belfast, we can expect that these constituencies will soon be considered safe Nationalist seats.
The problem in Scotland is that the SNP suspects that support for Scottish independence is to be found not only among its own voters, but among Labour and Liberal voters as well. For this reason it wants a referendum, which of course it will be denied for as long as possible.
Northern Ireland does not have this problem, because the voting in European Parliamentary elections is so structured that it acts as a de facto referendum. With one Nationalist and one Unionist seat guaranteed, the third has to be decided on transfers. This in effect forces the voters for smaller parties (Green, Alliance) to state their preference for the Nationalist or Unionist side. Last time they came down on the Unionist side by about 31,000 votes. It would be possible for this advantage to be completely wiped out in the 2009 election—it is only 1,722 votes per constituency—but, on balance, probably unlikely. But in 2014, the Unionist section of the population will have fallen so much that 2 Unionist seats is—well—about as likely as the Labour party winning a 200 seat majority at the next election. All things must pass, and Unionist have had a very good innings, even for a self-designed state.
So as to the question of whether Irish unity is inevitable, I would say first things first.
1) it is inevitable that the Unionist block will lose its fragile majority in Stormont and be pushed into minority status;
2) it is inevitable that the Unionist block will cease to hold a majority of the Westminster seats, and eventually be left with a minority of those seats;
3) it is inevitable that that Unionism’s 31,000 approx advantage in the European parliamentary elections will be severely depleted in next years election and wiped out in 2014.
A United Ireland may not be inevitable, but if it is prevented from happening, it is more or less inevitable that this will be by undemocratic means. As the anarchists said, if voting changed anything, they would abolish it.
George.
I think you missed my point. I am not remotely concerned by the thugs who rioted, though of course it is pleasing to see them jailed. My concern was for the reaction to the riots by the great and the good, and in that reaction we see a clear and striking difference between Dublin and London.
Mayoman,
Many’s the time I’ve spent in the Irish republic, sometimes for months on end. I was mostly always welcome (note, I said mostly, there’s some real ignorant bastards around Dublin)
But that was as a visitor.
I think the dynamic would change somewhat if it were me and a million like me who suddenly became part of the state and started being awkward about identity and such. you’ve already shown how you are likely to interpret Unionist actions,calling widows bigots for daring to want to highlight their loss at the hands of terrorists, and then you have the gall to say I’m the one taking undue offence?
TAFKABO,
the reaction from the great and good of Dublin was the same; indifference.
The only thing I think your average Dubliner took issue with was the thought of the Love Ulster people not only commemorating one of the terrorists who blew a couple of dozen Dubliners into little pieces one afternoon but them also walking past the memorial to his victims’ memory.
Otherwise, we are generally a pretty understanding bunch.
“That march was a litmus test, and not only did the RoI fail, they continue to fail by not accepting and understanding exactly what happened that day. I will say though, the Garda Siochanna were one group of Irish people who did the right thing, and fair play to them for their actions.”
With great shame, I have to agree with you. Shame at the lost opportunity that that parade represented and shame that those ignorant fuckers brought upon the Republic. I had genuinely, naively now I see, though it would have passed without a blinds bit of notice, and looked forward to pointing to it as evidence of how you all had the Republic wrong.
There’s no point in me disagreeing with you in how you see the events – or, like you rightly point out, telling you how you should see them. I’d see things in exactly the same way if I was you. The best that can be hoped to be made out of it is the revulsion felt against what happen will be a wake up call for exactly what you hint at when you ask what if you and a million others like you to suddenly became part of the state and started being awkward about identity.
I wonder if my fellow Mayoman had 1798 drummed into him as much as I had in primary school? Like me, did he wonder who were these semi-mythical Ulster Presbyterians, and where did they all go to? It was common knowledge that Presbyterians in Ulster were monsters, so it couldn’t be them! I think that that’s changed to some degree but the riots in Dublin show that there are plenty of nuts that the earlier diktat had hardened and whatever the reality of the Republic today, however much they disgust us, we have to bear the shame their actions – and bear it honestly.
PaddyR – re: Belfast North – there are economic demographics as well as religious/ tribal. There will a natioalist majority soon enough without a doubt but not sure Kelly will be able to collect enough votes to win. I think there’s too large a block who won’t vote for someone with such a war record.
There will a nationalist majority soon enough without a doubt but not sure Kelly will be able to collect enough votes to win.
“Soon enough” in this case probably means last month. As you point out, this advantage is lost if SF insist on putting their candidate forward. A ‘Nationalist’ win in South Belfast was facilitated largely because the candidate was a blameless man of Centrist persuasion. But as I already said, an inclination to split the Nationalist vote may hitherto have prevailed because Nationalists had no hope of winning anyway. The prize of 50% of the Westminster seats might cause a change of tactic. ‘Might’ though is the operative word.
But the Nationalist majority will still be there, even though party management insist on splitting it.
TAFKABO
I didn’t approve of the violence at the “love Ulster” parade as I disapprove of all violence.
However, don’t try and fool anyone by dressing it up as a commemoration for innocent victims (although not any victims of “loyalist” terrorism!).
There were a number of high profile “loyalist” terrorist figures present.
Also, Frazer and his crowd continue to carry placards commemorating Robert McConnell as an “innocent victim”. As you are probably already aware, McConnell has been named by other “loyalist” terrorists, the RUC, Special Branch and the British Army as a known “loyalist” terrorist who was involved in the murder of many innocent Catholics (he was also a UDR member which is no big surprise).
Call me picky but that doesn’t quite add up to an innocent victim to me. I kind of think of the people at La Mon or the customers in the bar at Loughinisland as innocent victims – not active sectarian murderers.
Then again, Frazer has form on this one. As he proudly proclaimed on Radio Ulster (the “loyalist” terrorists freed under the GFA) ‘should never have been jailed in the first place’.
If there was a parade up the Shankill of people waving banners with Sean Kelly’s name, I just bet the people who live there would stand idly by.
I re-iterate that I condemn the attack on the “Love Ulster” parade.
Frazer has been exposed many times on TV and radio for his ambiguous (to say the least!) attitude to “loyalist” terrorists.
The attack on his parade simply diverted media coverage away from his blatent hypocrisy.
i don’t think you Irishishers should beat yourselves up too much about the ‘Love Ulster’ parade. Ultimately it was a rabble of Neds (spides, whatever you call them) that caused the problem. For someone from NI to use that as a way of condemning an entire nation says more about his preconceptions/prejudices than anything. I mean, a guy (wearing a celtic top) got his throat slit in Belfast the other day by a sectarian mob, yet people are still seething about the ‘Love Ulster’ thing where no Love Ulster people actually got injured (as far an i’m aware). People in glass houses, etc. Anyway, some other reasons for NI not being mentioned by Gordon
Gordon is Scottish so he might just care more his native Scotland
Here in Scotland Unionism isn’t contaminated by loyalism/the Prodiban. There are a lot more Catholic voters in the UK than potential Labour voters in NI. Aligning yourself with people who really think that the Pope is an Antichrist (how many antichrists are there going to be?) might not go down too well with many catholics (or possibly many other voters).
also, the constitutional future of NI is, sort of, decided. There will be a referendum when the government thinks it can be passed, and it will be repeated until 50%+1 is achieved (correct me if that’s wrong). In Scotland they (the unionists) are against any form of referendum, because with any vote there is always the possible danger that the electorate won’t vote the way they ought to.
Can someone tell me which high profile loyalist terrorist figures were present at the love Ulster parade?
Go on, tell us all?
The answer is of course none, but watch how no one will provide me with an answer to the question I have just asked, nor will they stop making the charge.
So, as the thread goes on, we go from me being told that I have nothing to fear in a United Ireland, to being told that any demonstration of ordinary unionists is a demonstration of terrorists, to someone simply coming out and saying straight that you shouldn’t concern yourselves with the opinions of someone from Northern Ireland.
Some persuaders you are.
Mayo to Taf
>>Read what you like into my posts. A bit of a non-argument this. You’re going to be offended whatever I say.< <
Not hard to spot Mayo, best to not chew off your fingers rather than respond I reckon, a nutter!
I am a wee bit perturbed that there is a feeling here that Alec Salmond may just be doing what he is doing to 'wind up middle England' What a load of shite! For the first time we have a government in Scotland trying to govern Scots on behalf of Scots. Expressing a will/desire to reassert Scottish sovereignty, and to try and legislate to govern for the people, is not I assure you done to 'wind up middle England'
Iain
>>In Scotland they (the unionists) are against any form of referendum, because with any vote there is always the possible danger that the electorate won’t vote the way they ought to.<<
*chuckles* I know, the bastards! However at the very least as long as the SNP have their secret weapon in Wendy Alexander, we can look forward to SNP dominance. They have to be obstinate and lucky all of the time(to stop a referendum) we only have to be lucky once.
I’m not an irish nationalist so i’m not trying to persuade you into a UI. Actually, as Ulster Unionists have said on this site, the South is probably better off without the financial burden of Northern Ireland. Though, does that imply that the UK would also be better off without the financial burden of Northern Ireland!
Iain
“Though, does that imply that the UK would also be better off without the financial burden of Northern Ireland!”
YES!
The north has been a massive financial burden on the UK exchequer for decades as well as being a political embarassment on the world stage.
The RoI govt certainly don’t want to take on the financial burden so they’re taking it slowly.
The average English guy doesn’t understand NI and doesn’t care except that it’s costing the UK money.
That’s why there is so little support for the Union in GB – costs a fortune and contributes nothing.
Harold Wilson wasn’t wrong 30 odd years ago when he called them spongers – he still wouldn’t be wrong today!
Mick
It is completely disingenuous to compare NI with Cornwall; NI is supposedly a separate and equal country within the Union. You would expect that when referring to the Union and the other constituent parts it would be mentioned as a matter of course. In fact it is startling that it is not done, regardless of the feelings of Nationalism. British Governments have certainly never cared before, and it is also hard to imagine a Tory leader not doing it.
I don’t want to exaggerate Labour’s existential crisis any more that it’s worth, but in NI, it doesn’t exist.
Simply because Labour doesn’t exist here. But you are not entirely right. The situation here is directly applicable to the situation in Scotland: anything that is agreed here can be demanded and applied by Scotland very easily – hence the reluctance to countenance tax raising powers here.
The question is then “Why are Labour splitting us off as a place apart?”. Granted, the fragility of the deal and the time and effort invested is one factor. But I can’t help but think that Labour sees the direction here running in a certain direction, if not necessarily making it all the way to the conclusion favoured by Nationalism. And it certainly fits in a pattern of behaviour: aside from the strong role of the Irish Government, Minster have come out and stated the desire to move towards an All Ireland economy.
That example is inherently dangerous where Scotland is concerned, so it is quarantined.
As for Wales, well, the problem is Labour’s hegemony. It will need every seat it can muster next time out, and who’s to say that Welsh voters are not going to be tempted to follow Scotland that bit further.
I think the point everyone missed is that devolution meant the end of the overwhelming, unchallenged dominance of Labour in both Wales and Scotland. That grew out of a reaction tot he Tories. However, with devolution Labour became the local power, and even with the Tories in power nationally that would result in unfulfilled expectations and the creation of space for other parties.
“Harold Wilson wasn’t wrong 30 odd years ago when he called them spongers – he still wouldn’t be wrong today!”
Billy, according to Garrett Fitzgerald, the Wilson speech was a disaster, even though it momentarily produced a ‘United Ireland’
Well the problem with subsidies and “spongers” and the like is that it is not the Six counties that needs subsidising, but the separation of the Six Counties from its natural hinterland.
Gibraltar costs quite a lot to the British Exchequer, and if there were 40 Gibraltars along the coast of Spain to maintain Britain would be nearly broke, but that does not mean that Spain cannot afford them. Spain already has them.
Two points.
Scottish independence is surely unlikely, based on election results and opinion polls.
Even if Scotland did leave the Union, it does not follow that Northern Ireland will. NI’s future is to be determined by its people and no-one else: that is a fundamental bedrock of Government policy and a foundation-stone of the Belfast Agreement. No Government is going to ditch it because of Scottish independence.
Billy Liar
The north has been a massive financial burden on the UK exchequer for decades
And that’s a massive exaggeration.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me which high profile loyalist terrorists were at the Love Ulster march.
But don’t worry, if you can’t answer the simple question, just call me a nutter and go back to the safety and comfort of your preferred delusion.
TAF
I never claimed that there were Unionist terrorists there and have no proffered delusion, comfortable or otherwise. What I see is someone serially ignoring the well made points of others, thus I am not surprised that they have chosen not to argue(for that is seemingly all you want) with someone who is not a serious engaged in debate, who can blame them?
Willow
>>Scottish independence is surely unlikely, based on election results and opinion polls.< <
Absolutely unlikely, as long as the London run Unionist parties in Scotland are told by their masters not to allow an independence referendum. And if like you say the polls and election results are again us, just what do they have to fear?
>>NI’s future is to be determined by its people and no-one else: that is a fundamental bedrock of Government policy and a foundation-stone of the Belfast Agreement. No Government is going to ditch it because of Scottish independence.<<
Do you still get disappointed when the tooth fairies haven’t left money under you pillow since you moved out of Mammy and Daddy’s? There is change in the air Willow, the English are I suspect going to tighten immigration considerably. Without Scotland they may well question for real just why they still have a colony over the water, and want rid.
Posted by willowfield on Apr 01, 2008 @ 01:10 PM
Even if Scotland did leave the Union, it does not follow that Northern Ireland will. NI’s future is to be determined by its people and no-one else: that is a fundamental bedrock of Government policy and a foundation-stone of the Belfast Agreement. No Government is going to ditch it because of Scottish independence.
Which government willowfield? The English government? Scottish Independence is a huge threat to the union. What would be left for NI to be united with, would the remaining entity feel in any way bound by the GFA and can you be sure that even a majority of NI people would go for it if they were invited? So my question remains, what should the Unionist attitude to Alec be and is there scope for differentiation between the Unionist parties on this issue? What does the TUV say about this and does NI opinion actually matter in any meaningful way?
As for you PaddyReilly, you might be right. My point is, eventually there will be a referendum and the people will decide. If the question is not settled, the approach is. That’s why I wanted to focus on the other threat.
PRINCE
There is change in the air Willow, the English are I suspect going to tighten immigration considerably. Without Scotland they may well question for real just why they still have a colony over the water, and want rid.
As I said, NI’s future being determined by its people and no-one else is a fundamental bedrock of Government policy and a foundation-stone of the Belfast Agreement. After the Troubles and the tortuous years of “peace” negotiations, no Government is going to ditch something so fundamental because of Scottish independence.
BRISO
Which government willowfield?
The Westminster government.
What would be left for NI to be united with …
England and Wales.
… would the remaining entity feel in any way bound by the GFA
Yes, legally, morally, and politically.
… and can you be sure that even a majority of NI people would go for it if they were invited?
We can never be sure of that, regardless of what happens in respect of Scotland.
“What would be left for NI to be united with …
England and Wales.”
Why not Scotland? Isn’t that the primary link?
Er, if Scotland left the Union, then only England, Wales and Northern Ireland would remain!
Or are you suggesting that Scottish nationalists wish for a union with Northern Ireland?
>>As I said, NI’s future being determined by its people and no-one else is a fundamental bedrock of Government policy and a foundation-stone of the Belfast Agreement. After the Troubles and the tortuous years of “peace” negotiations, no Government is going to ditch something so fundamental because of Scottish independence.<<
And as I say things change. However if you think that the people of NI would be able to impose themselves on the English and Welsh who might by then not want them. I have a nice business concern that my Nigerian friend Noel might like to offer you.
what if England leaves? and Scotland? Does the Belfast Agreement in effect decide for the English and Scots if they can leave the UK or not?
“Or are you suggesting that Scottish nationalists wish for a union with Northern Ireland?”
Wasn’t asking what Scot Nats want – wanted you to progress your usual clinical logic. So it doesn’t matter who leaves the Union you’d want to be with the remnant. So if England & Wales leave you’ll stay with Scotland, if Scotland and England leave you’ll stay with Wales, and if there is a total dissolution Gibralter for it?
Prince.
You say you don’t want to argue, but then to play the man and not the ball by calling people “nutters”, or you make snide remarks about people living with Mummy and Daddy.
You got indignant and pointed out that you never said loyalist terrorists were at the march, even though you must have read some of those you defended on this thread saying that very thing, surely you were able to work out that I was talking to them when I asked for clarification on this point?
Yes, I do want argue, what’s wrong with thrashing things out on the internet?; it beats the hell out of tearng each other to pieces on the streets.
Arguing needn’t be negative, as long as we all afford each other a little respect by not resorting to cheap name calling and such.
Anyway, back on topic.
Worst case scenario for Unionists, Scotland declares indpendance.
What happens then?
Westminster suddenly make s a statement declaring the Union null and void?
I doubt it.
Whatver happens, the GFA still stands, and unless there’s a majority vote there’ll be no united Ireland.
Unionist might just as well think they could go it alone as join with the Republic. The only argument currently in favourof reunification is an economic one, and simply put, even with things as they are, the republic couldn’t afford to simply take on Northern Ireland, not without drastic cuts which would lead to inevitable political instability and violence, and they aren’t up for a fight, they never have been.
Do you think England would leave Unionists without arming them first?
If you were someone in England and you had the choice of leaving Unionists without arms, and having a million or so of them move to England, or giving them enough guns to encourage them to stay where they were, what would you choose?
Anyway, tis is all speculation, but the point is that ther’s so many variables at play, it’s yet more wishful thinking on the part of Republicans that everything’s just going to fall into their laps.
Sorry TAF, been working. In answer to your question. Start with the organiser. Most on this board will know his story (I wonder if the two innocent ‘prods’ gunned down in the car park of his nightclub by the UVF are represented by FAIR as ‘innocent victims’). But no ‘real’ evidence hey? Yeah, and Gerry was never in the IRA either! Can you come back with an answer that doesn’t totally smack of turning a blind eye when it suits you most?
On another point: you say “If you were someone in England and you had the choice of leaving Unionists without arms, and having a million or so of them move to England, or giving them enough guns to encourage them to stay where they were, what would you choose?”
I’m sorry, this is just nonsense! They wouldn;t care less if 1 million moved over, as long as they behaved. Also, if they gave you guns, would you use them? You posing that scenario suggests you would, and that their is an appetite amongst those you know to do the same. That explains, to me anyway, many of your previous posts. Violence ok in the right circumstamces hey? How many are you prepared to kill with these crazily hypothetical ‘guns from england’?
The fact is, there is little support in England for the union. It is an embarassment that most want reversed as they recognise what a perversion of demcoracy the whole thing was. I know this. I grew up there, and the only poll of this type that has been taken, provides more evidence of the same. Show me the evidence that there is ANY widespread (outside of Combat 18) willingness by English people to support and arm loyalist paramilataries — in whatever circumstances.
Just to add. I am also aware of the awful tragedies suffered by the organiser and his family. Something which, like all such acts, were totally abhorrent to me. I would not wish that on anyone, and I mean anyone.
The prospect of having a million Northern Irishmen (presumably all Protestants) move to England is indeed a frightening one. Fortunately things are not that bad. For a start there were only 895, 377 Northern Irish Protestants in 2001, less now, and by the time a United Ireland is feasible, there will be considerably fewer. I did work out how many that was once: I think it was around 770,000. The Protestant population is actually declining quite rapidly.
England, having accepted many more Poles than that in the last few years, should have no trouble in accommodating them, especially since the arrival of that many Prods would facilitate the departure of an equivalent number of already resident Paddies. Or even Poles.
But of course it is silly even to contemplate such an event. In a United Ireland one imagines that Alliance voters and probably the bulk of UUP voters would immediately sign up for Fine Gael and be absorbed into the general body politic of Ireland. This leaves the DUP (and presumably TUV) voters to be reconciled. But there are less than 250,000 of these, a number which compares very favorably with that of, say, Muslims in England.
As for arming these people in order to allow them to stay put, I would have thought this was an extremely unwise course to take: surely it would prove counterproductive, making it necessary for the other 87% of the Irish population to oppose them, and probably lead to the sort of ethnic cleansing it was designed to prevent. Better to leave the Prods unarmed, and use diplomatic pressure to make sure the Irish treat them well.
So while not ruling out some sort of population transfer on the creation of a United Ireland: an entirely voluntary one, similar to the emigration of white people from South Africa: one would imagine that it would be relatively small, something like 100,000 people. This would leave the remaining opponents of integration in an even weaker position, to the extent that they would want to throw in the towel. After 400 years in situ (for some), it might be a good idea to sever the emotional connection with the mother land and start identifying with the land of your birth and residence. After all, quite a number of white South Africans have managed to do so.
The idea that an independent Scotland would mean England would want to sever its ties with Ireland has no merit in my eyes. After all, Ireland was joined to England long before Scotland was, and there are plenty of other English colonies in the world, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falklands, which make no geographic sense.
Sorry TAF, been working. In answer to your question. Start with the organiser. Most on this board will know his story (I wonder if the two innocent ‘prods’ gunned down in the car park of his nightclub by the UVF are represented by FAIR as ‘innocent victims’). But no ‘real’ evidence hey? Yeah, and Gerry was never in the IRA either! Can you come back with an answer that doesn’t totally smack of turning a blind eye when it suits you most?
Who is turning a blind eye?
I’ve heard the stories you’re referring to, but I think you’re stretching it a bit, and leaving yourself open to seriousl legal action if you start calling people like that leading loyalist terrorist figures.
So really, that’s what this is all about, you see him as a leading loyalist figure?
Tell me, do you think any Loyalist regards him as a leading loyalist figure?
On another point: you say “If you were someone in England and you had the choice of leaving Unionists without arms, and having a million or so of them move to England, or giving them enough guns to encourage them to stay where they were, what would you choose?”
I’m sorry, this is just nonsense!
Yeah, it’s pretty far fetched, but to me it’s on a par with the nonsense about the imminent united Ireland I’m hearing from others on this thread.
Also, if they gave you guns, would you use them? You posing that scenario suggests you would, and that their is an appetite amongst those you know to do the same. That explains, to me anyway, many of your previous posts. Violence ok in the right circumstamces hey? How many are you prepared to kill with these crazily hypothetical ‘guns from england’?
Now you’re doing what you did earlier, dismissing my opinions by demonising me and ascribing attitudes and beliefs I do not hold.
Just as you earlier demonised the innocent victims on that march,now you’re dong the same to me, lumping me in with a grouop of psychpathic killers, not only that ,but you are happy to extend this to everyone I know, simply because of that post of mine.
I’ve never supported the violence, certainly never supported the loyalists, I shouldn’t have to even say that, I assume everyone I meet is a decent human being until they give me reason to think otherwise, you seem to grasp any excuse to dehumanise those whose opinions cause you difficulty.
The fact is, there is little support in England for the union. It is an embarassment that most want reversed as they recognise what a perversion of demcoracy the whole thing was. I know this. I grew up there,
Oh aye?, and growing up there put you in contact with a big enough sample group of the population with which you discussed this issue?
and the only poll of this type that has been taken, provides more evidence of the same.
What poll? That Guardian poll couldn’t get a majority to agree with what you just said was widespread opinion.
Show me the evidence that there is ANY widespread (outside of Combat 18) willingness by English people to support and arm loyalist paramilataries—in whatever circumstances.
I never suggested there was such a thing, so I don’t really feel the need to support such a claim.
I will say this though, the idea of arming Unionists and getting the hell out of Northern Ireland didn’t come from me, I read it in the diaries of a leading Tory party member.
Mayoman,
[i]The fact is, there is little support in England for the union.[/i]
True. There is also little opposition to it.
[i]It is an embarassment that most want reversed as they recognise what a perversion of demcoracy the whole thing was.[/i]
Utter tosh. Very, [i]very[/i] few give a shit one way or the other.
Willowfield QC
“The north has been a massive financial burden on the UK exchequer for decades
And that’s a massive exaggeration.”
I see that you’ve resorted to petty and childish name calling again – grow up!
I am originally a chartered accountant by profession. I am also a highly qualified and experienced financial analyst and have worked for one of the world’s largest investment banks in various parts of the world for over 20 years.
I certainly don’t need advice from you about understanding finances – the North has cost the UK Exchequer tens of billions over the last few decades – it’s a matter of public record.
Please spare us one of your long-winded pompous analyses – if you can provide figures to disprove what I have said then kindly do so!
If you can’t then it just shows that you are (yet again!) mouthing off without any factual basis.
Unlike you, I don’t resort to calling people liars just because I disagree with their point of view.
I don’t think you’re a liar, you actually believe the shite that you come out with!
Prince Eoghan
And as I say things change.
Not so much that a government would wish to risk unravelling “peace” in Northern Ireland.
However if you think that the people of NI would be able to impose themselves on the English and Welsh who might by then not want them.
Are you suggesting that the Scottish want us more than the English and Welsh? I don’t think the popularity of Northern Ireland is any lesser or greater in the current UK than it would be in one without Scotland. As I said – it’s not down to the Scots, English or Welsh: it’s down to people in Northern Ireland: they and only they will decide.
Jonny
what if England leaves? and Scotland? Does the Belfast Agreement in effect decide for the English and Scots if they can leave the UK or not?
No.
Dewi
So it doesn’t matter who leaves the Union you’d want to be with the remnant. So if England & Wales leave you’ll stay with Scotland, if Scotland and England leave you’ll stay with Wales, and if there is a total dissolution Gibralter for it?
Gibraltar isn’t in the UK.
I don’t think it’s legally possible for England, as by far the largest constituent, to “leave” the UK. I think that if the UK were to be dissolved, England would continue as the legal successor, similar to how Russia was the legal successor to the USSR, Serbia to Yugoslavia, etc. So, if Scotland left, the Union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would become a Union between Northern Ireland and England and Wales. And if both Scotland and Wales left, it would be a Union between Northern Ireland and England.
Unionists in NI don’t want either Scotland or Wales to leave, but if either did, it wouldn’t mean that they would suddenly want to unite with Southern Ireland, nor would it mean that they would want to separate from England. Such a situation may well, of course, persuade more of the “non-aligned” in Northern Ireland to support a “united Ireland” than would otherwise be the case.
Billy Liar
I see that you’ve resorted to petty and childish name calling again – grow up!
No, Billy, you need to grow up. You need to stop telling lies and you need to retract lies and apologise when they are exposed. When you retract your lies, I’ll stop calling you Billy Liar.
I am originally a chartered accountant by profession.
Congratulations! When did you give up the law? Or do you practise both professions simultaneously?
I am also a highly qualified and experienced financial analyst and have worked for one of the world’s largest investment banks in various parts of the world for over 20 years.
Well done, Billy. I am in complete awe of you now: you’re a chartered accountant, a lawyer and a financial analyst – I can’t compete with that, I’m afraid.
I certainly don’t need advice from you about understanding finances – the North has cost the UK Exchequer tens of billions over the last few decades – it’s a matter of public record.
But that’s not a “massive financial burden”. It’s a mere drop in the ocean. I would have thought such an “experienced financial analyst” would know that.
Unlike you, I don’t resort to calling people liars just because I disagree with their point of view.
I don’t do that either, Billy. I only call people liars when they tell lies!
Willowfield QC
I have never claimed to be a lawyer. I assume you’re referring to my comment about my 2 colleagues in our legal dept expressing their opinion that the IFA would lose their case against FIFA.
A lot of derision and attempts at humour came my way from “fans” of the North – until the decision proved my colleagues correct of course!
I think the fact that I am a chartered accountant and qualified banker gives me a better insight into financial matters than an opinionated, unqualified amateur.
I generally find that experienced qualified people in any field have just a little bit more insight than unqualified pompous bores who read the papers and then state their opinions as if they were facts backed up by real evidence.
I think you’ll find that the UK govt has finally realised that it has wasted billions on the spongers in the North who have provided exactly nothing (unless you count decades of international political embarassment)in return.
GB will never withdraw from the North against the wishes of a (diminishing) majority – that is correct and I respect that.
However, only a fool could fail to see the increasing disengagement of the GB govt and their extremely active encouragement of increasing influence from the RoI govt over the running of the North.
Anyone who is even vaguely open minded and intelligent would realise that neither the GB govt nor the vast majority of British people see the North as being “as British as Finchley” and they never did.
There are some Nationalists who need a reality check about their United Ireland aspirational timetable.
Equally there are quite a few Unionists who live in a dream world about the “strength” of the Union with the North and the “commitment” of Westminster to it.
Billy Liar
I have never claimed to be a lawyer.
Really?
I suggests you click this link:
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ifa-provoking-political-row-over-football-eligibility/P325
“As I am in the legal profession, I also deal in FACTS.”
Posted by Billy on Aug 23, 2007 @ 10:48 AM
Dear me, Billy: your lies are coming back to haunt you!
Have you ever seen the eponymous film?
Plot summary for Billy Liar (1963)
“Plot Outline:A lazy, irresponsible young clerk in provincial Northern England lives in his own fantasy world and makes emotionally immature decisions as he alienates friends and family.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056868/
Billy Liar
I think the fact that I am a chartered accountant and qualified banker gives me a better insight into financial matters than an opinionated, unqualified amateur.
But how can we know that you really are “a chartered accountant and qualified banker”? After all, your previous claims to be a lawyer turned out to be a fantasy? Does your virtual profession change depending on the subject of the thread?
The subvention to NI is not a “massive financial burden” and you know it, Billy.
Now, any chance of retracting your lies about me and about NI football supporters?
Here’s another film you might like to rent:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039808/
willow
The subvention to NI is not a “massive financial burden” and you know it, Billy.
It’s all relative, isn’t it? It is undoubtedly bearable, and probably could even be just about borne by the vastly smaller economy of the Republic, but as these things go, it’s a fairly significant black hole.
The current subvention to the six counties is ~ £5 billion. The current yearly budget deficit is projected to be ~ £5-8 billion. When the public finances deteriorate, these things loom that much larger. The subventions from England are already a bit of a political hot potato there, but if the comparison was pressed it would probably go even further up the scale.
Equally another way of putting it is that NI is the equivalent per year of 5 Iraq wars, and that is viewed as a significant expense the population would rather see spent elsewhere, generally.
It’s not “massive”, kensei. Come on!
There is a subvention to all regions of the UK outside the south-east. NI is the highest, but Wales isn’t far behind and I’m sure there are smaller regions of comparable size to NI with large subventions.
The current subvention to the six counties is ~ £5 billion.
Although I think we discussed that this doesn’t take into account tax revenues from NI by companies with HQ in England?
It’s not “massive”, kensei. Come on!
You are picking on an entirely subjective term. It depends on your point of reference? GDP? Probably not. But in comparison to some other government expenses, and the deficit, it is certainly eyebrow raising. And there is always exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. I don’t really get pursuing this, as it isn’t really a winnable argument.
The key points are:
1. Can it be borne? The answer is yes, probably by both the Republic and the UK but vastly more easily by the latter.
2. Is the political will there to take it? In the case of the UK, yes though it’s diminishing fast. In the case of the Republic, more than likely no, unless they are forced into a political corner.
3. Can it be brought down? Without doubt, though I’m not entirely sure anyone here is going to try to unless they are forced, given the horrible clientism of our politics the Union engenders.
Although I think we discussed that this doesn’t take into account tax revenues from NI by companies with HQ in England?
I honestly doubt this would have a significant impact, given the relative sizes of the economies.
Taf
>>You say you don’t want to argue< <
No, I didn't say that. I made a guess as to why the silence of the others at your argy bargy substanceless debating style.
>>calling people “nutters”, or you make snide remarks about people living with Mummy and Daddy.< <
Sorry for touching a nerve.
>>surely you were able to work out that I was talking to them when I asked for clarification on this point?< <
Sure hammer home one minor point and demand answers, even though it is superfluous to the overall point made, whilst practically ignoring all else. Is there really too much of a difference between glorifying Unionist terrorists and having them present?
>>Yes, I do want argue, what’s wrong with thrashing things out on the internet?; it beats the hell out of tearng each other to pieces on the streets.
Arguing needn’t be negative, as long as we all afford each other a little respect by not resorting to cheap name calling and such.< <
Great points! As long as both play fair, you I'm afraid weren't.
Willow
>>it’s down to people in Northern Ireland: they and only they will decide.< <
I keep repeating that they may not have that option at some point. And you ignore the family ties, shared history and emotional pull between Scotland and Ireland in general, and the north of Ireland and Scotland in particular. This crosses over all sections of the community.
Kensei
>>t’s not “massive”, kensei. Come on!< <
Aw no! Don't do it, just give in.
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/speaking-truth-unto-power-gets-awkward/P50/
Prince
I keep repeating that they may not have that option at some point.
And I keep repeating that it’s implausible to suggest that a future government will decide to risk unravelling “peace” in NI.
And you ignore the family ties, shared history and emotional pull between Scotland and Ireland in general, and the north of Ireland and Scotland in particular. This crosses over all sections of the community.
Indeed it does, but Scotland’s withdrawal from the Union would not turn NI unionists into nationalists.
>>but Scotland’s withdrawal from the Union would not turn NI unionists into nationalists.< <
Ah, I fear you may be missing the point. Without Scotland to help share the monetry burden, and without the need to worry about Scotland's ties with the north of Ireland and all the kinds of sensitivities that entails. England may well decide to look after her own interests and decide that she no longer wants or feels obligated to prop up her colony over the water. Of course it's all if's but's and maybe's, but real ones nevertheless. I believe that real change is coming foe England, much will centre around a tightening of emigration and ironing out longstanding issues. Billy Britain Brown may not like it, but the English people I feel have had just about enough.
>>a future government will decide to risk unravelling “peace” in NI.<<
I don’t think there is really a real threat of major upheaval one way or the other.
“only thing the prime minister has to concern himself with..”