Nationalism: If your vision is thwarted then it may be time to redraw your parameters…
If the first three years of this blog was largely about charting the crisis in Unionism, the last four have undoubtedly been and locating and examining the (corresponding?) crisis in Nationalism. It seems my mildly provocative piece suggesting that Gerry Adams find some way of making his position as leader of Sinn Fein contestable, even suggesting this may be the right moment to retire has brought a firm reply from the man himself, with one of his most focused posts on Leargas to date:
This activist has no intention of resigning. There is much to be done. As citizens face greater economic punishment at the hands of an incompetent Dublin government and as rejectionists in the north gear up for more negativity our duty is face the future with confidence and to stand up for decent politics, fairness and equality. And a reunited Ireland. That is what leadership is about. The time for republican politics is now.
Adams accepts there has been a back draft though, particularly in the south:
Sinn Féin certainly faces challenges. But that is what struggle is about and the party is debating the issues involved in an open and thorough way. I am absolutely confident that we will conclude that debate over the summer and face into what will be a winter of discontent in the wider political systems on this island, in a united and intelligent way.
The resignations of a small number of Sinn Féin councillors has also been seized upon by our detractors in a futile attempt to promote their flawed analysis. Sure these resignations are disappointing. But that’s politics. Those involved have their own reasons for resigning, mainly sited in local issues. That is their choice – the wrong choice in my view but that’s the way it goes and it’s hardly the end of Sinn Féin.
Niall O’Dowd also takes issue with my line of argument, and echoes some of those articulated in the original Slugger thread that:
Adams needs to stay for the future of Sinn Fein and the peace process. Right now there is a determined challenge from a hardline republican group to the peace process. Adams is needed, as always, to steady the grassroots and show the way forward.
And:
The fact is that with Eirigi and others like them around the peace deal is not yet cemented; the last nails have not been hammered in the coffin of the bad old days.
You only have to go back to this month’s marching season incidents to see how fraught it can become so quickly. The Sinn Fein leadership has navigated through far harder shoals than this but you never know what could cause the seams to start ripping apart. This is no time for Adams to go.
Adams promises product from his party’s internal review by the end of the summer. My own modest observation is that democratic renewal is tough for any party charged with holding the reigns of power. It is doubly, even triply tougher to launch a coherent political project which successfully straddles two jurisdictions, not least of two such differing and diverse polities as the Republic and the UK.
However the party manages it, Adams needs not simply to bring on new voices (he’s widely credited with his party’s strategy for bringing women in to senior roles) but to encourage, for a time at least, a diversity of thinking and ambitions for the future within, to give the party the licence to think outside the box it’s currently in, precisely so that it can successfully find a back out of it. And then, perhaps, to move resolutely in a single chosen direction regain some of the momentum the party has lost since June 2007.
That’s a tall order for a party that’s come from the hard place Sinn Fein has come from, and where in many ways it still resides…
I’ve no easy answers. Except to say that this morning one of my work colleague mentioned (in a completely different context) a particular quote from a book by the English born conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra, Benjamin Zander and his wife (I think) Rosamund, The Art of Possibility: Transforming Professional and Personal Life
Given that no particular branch of nationalism is exactly flourishing at the moment, that might be fair advice for nationalist parties at large, and not simply Sinn Fein…
Principled prod:
even if Ireland does, or will, have a stronger economy than that of the north’s or the UK’s, most unionists would just rather prefer to be governed by London
Greedy fenian:
I have many Church-going friends, with Irish passports and GAA membership, who don’t want a UI at the minute. It’s the economy, stupid.
So on one hand many Nationalists apparantly will want to stay in the UK because of the hypothetically strong future UK economy. Flipping that over Unionists will want to stay in the UK even if it’s the weaker economy of the two? In essence a strong UK economy is enough for Nationalists, but a strong ROI economy won’t convince Unionists.
Why do you suppose that Nationalists are so ready to forgoe their primary political desire in return for a hypothetically strong UK economy and Unionists are so principled that it wouldn’t matter about the money in your argument? Why in your mind are Unionists principled (their loyalty trumps their desire for money) while Nationalists are money hungry, unprincipled and greedy (prepared to sacrifice their loyalty for money)?
A few other points: the hypothetical (Irish) Nationalist prods and the hypothetical Unionist catholics, trying to quantify these things would be like trying to quantify voter apathy – good luck with that, herding cats it is; The economy as an argument in the current climate you don’t know who’s robbing you, where’s the next Madoff gonna come from, who’s economy’s gonna be more fucked in five years – herding cats again; 50% +1 is the means by which the Union is enforced at the moment, 50% + 1 will be enough to end it thanks all the same; and finally this oft touted idea that more than 50% of the ROI won’t want NI for economic reasons, what total shite, post me one study, just one where the southern electorate suggested that might happen.
Random Quotes, the conversation on Ireland been able or unable to ‘afford’ unification, hasn’t happen, neither has the conversation on how it would happen so on what do you base your comment.
This is just another mindless argument to put on the shelf with the ‘for social and ecomonic reasons’ one.
Why have the conversations on what form a united Ireland would have and how could it be achieved not taken place,
Its not because the people who want a united Ireland won’t have them, its because those who don’t want a united Ireland won’t have them.
If you’re correct unionism should be chomping at the bit to prove a united Ireland isn’t feasable
Ultimately bi-nationalism and a non-sectarian state can only go so far (although quite far to removing the disenfranchisement and oppression of Catholics) and NI has to be part of either the Irish Republic (extended to cover the whole island) or the UK.
The rights of the Irish Catholic Gaelic nationalists in those six counties stand against the right of those Ulster Unionists/Protestants. There are two competing nations both with a right to self-determination. The latters right to claim to be British or Ulster/Scots and not Irish (in the RoI sence) is just as legimate as those of the Irish Catholics right to consider that they are part of some all island culture distinct from mainland Britain.
Majoritarianism is far from ideal but better a large minority does not get to be part of the state it wants than a majority is forced out of the state to which it has belonged for hundreds of years. If a region is going to secede from a state no one can argue that the right to self-determination permits this to happen when only a minority in that region want it.
The principle of consent is the best we’ve got and when Sinn Fein/IRA surrendered they signed up to it, so this debate is pretty sterile. You’ve now got to persuade the Prods that they are Irish (in the sense you use the term). Good luck with that.
Britney
kensei, why do you no longer post entries any more? This site badly needs a PSF propagandist. I’d like to hear more from you. One thing about you bugs me, though – you are the only contributor on the site that I regularly see using profanities. Just to let you know, it’s “not big, and it’s not clever. Ta.”
Once again Britney, I have never been a member of any political party. £1000 to anyone that can prove otherwise. And very little of my limited output concerns SF.
I have not posted because I have been very busy, and even my below the fold comments are way down. Without the time to do topics something approaching a minimal standard, they don’t go up.
And I swear, because I fucking like swearing. And sadly nowhere near as much as I used to because people moan. Google Stephen Fry on the matter.
Fin,
I take your point, in that the whole economic argument needs a few boffins to work out how much NI costs etc. But looking at it plainly, the cost of the block grant to the british government is £10 billion a year. Very little of that is recouped, meaning NI is a pretty bad business, and would continue to be for the ROI. All it would be is a ‘loss leader’ to the likes of the USA, who may pour money into a UI.
Saying that, if someone could convince me otherwise, I would be happy to fall into the bracket of someone who needs convincing of the financial merits of a UI, but not wholeheartedly against the idea.
As a prod from a unionist background, I can agree with fin that there is a significant number of “unionists”, (at least of background), who if not enthusiastic supporters of a UI, are certainly open to the idea. This is a continuing trend accelerated by changes over the last decades in ROI from a backward theocracy to a modern secular state, the removal of the PIRA guns from our heads and increased education in our own communities, (still a way to go).
The majority of my friends and family think the same way. We like being Irish. We like Dublin and Donegal. We also happen to like a lot about our Britishness. Can we think of a situation where we retain most of this and even build on other areas. Yes we can.
The economy is one thing but we are smart enough to realise that this can be a cyclical thing. The ROI is in a bad way just now. However, make no mistake, the UK is also facing bankruptcy. Neither is good. The EU will probably save Ireland. I am not sure about the UK.
One thing SF could do to realise their dream is actively promote integrated education. There is nothing like getting to know people for breaking down barriers and building bonds. Therein lies true unity.
“As a prod from a unionist background, I can agree with fin that there is a significant number of “unionists”, (at least of background), who if not enthusiastic supporters of a UI, are certainly open to the idea.”
This is very interesting to an outside observer. My understanding had always been that there were virtually no “Nationalist” Prods but a significant chunk (5-10%) of ‘soft’ Unionist Catholics.
A while ago I attended a talk given by Garrett Fitzgerald where he urged us (the Northern Irish) to ditch our “proletarian” education system. It was compelling because it came from a position of proper research, pragmatism and experience – and seemed free of ideological grandstanding.
Sinn Fein’s handicap is that they’re unable to sell the benefits of something we can all touch and feel – the policies, systems and institutions developed in the republic, which might well be suited to northern needs – and are forced to sell pie in the sky – the potential benefits of a United Ireland transformed by Sinn Fein’s great socialist vision.
Nationalism’s best hope is the full involvement of Ireland parties of government – something that mandatory coalition ought to facilitate. If some sort of “NI Nationalist Alliance” flag of convenience has to be used for Westminster then so be it but what nationalism needs is the presence of Irish Labour, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in the Stormont Assembly and committee rooms.
Brit,
Its not unknown. I would agree with DJK, there would be a fair percentage of the younger generations of those from a unionist background who may need convincing, but would not be against the idea of a UI. But show me the nationalist parties trying to convince them??
This is very interesting to an outside observer. My understanding had always been that there were virtually no “Nationalist” Prods but a significant chunk (5-10%) of ‘soft’ Unionist Catholics.
My understanding is there’s been a lot of bollocks talked on the issue. I can think of one Catholic Unionist I know, (both he and his da are/were peelers) but on the flipside I know a couple of Irish Nationalist Unionists. The truth of the matter is that there are always some people who operate outside the stereotype, there are many people who wouldn’t vote as well, but the folks who defy the stereotypes are likely to be a similair number either side of the fence.
It will take an actual vote before the truth of the matter becomes close to being known. There are too many variables on the referendum subject to even accurately hypothesise, though if I were to do so then a good basis would be the proportion of Catholics:Protestants in NI, simply because both sides should throw up a similair number of inconsistencies. We’re a group of people separated by our interpretation of the bible (a book a significant number of people don’t care about any more), we ain’t that different.
The interesting scenario (although one I feel unlikely) is that a majority in NI, say 60%, became solidly in favour of a UI, what would happen.
First there would be a United Ireland but within the six counties would be a signficant group 40% opposed to it (and a large group within that group vehemently opposed).
Assuming the loyalists (or perhaps Ulster-Scots Nationalists as they would now become) eschewed the gun and bomb and started a movement for independece for their Ulster-Scots state in Down and Antrim – perhaps federated with Scotland.
Under basic principles of self-determination (and subject to equal rights for Catholics in the new Ulster-Scots republic) it is difficult to see how Irish Nationalists could argue against such a re-partition?
Random Quotes, a general rule of thumb (apart from tax havens) is the larger the landmass and therefore population the more ecomonic might a country has, its not a magic rule and there are lots of exceptions, however its a starting point. Is the basketcase that NI is at the moment a hurdle, of course it is, but long term a population of 6m will build a stronger ecomony than a pop of 4m. Is adding 25% more land to a state going to make it richer, of course it is.
DJK, ‘Britishness’ is always something I’ve found it hard to quantify, I live in London these days and travelled around most of GB and I don’t think there is an area I don’t like, but I am also struck by how diversly different the different areas are, last years Summer holidays were in Cornwall and New Year was in the Highlands both rural regions but they were chalk and cheese.
Is Britishness for unionists like you a case of been Irish but not Irish like the rest, I think that attitude of been the same but different is abundant in the UK and Ireland although I think the Irish/British of NI (and all of Ulster) stick out alot more in both the UK and Ireland.
Fin,
I think the responses of Kensei , DJK, Brit and Random Quote, all in their own way point in a direction . The ‘economic arguments’ for or against a UI would only be significant if there was a huge gap either way between living standards in the UK /Ireland/Northern Ireland . The actual basis on which those living standards are constructed i.e the UK’s south eastern economic engine . Northern Ireland’s public sector dominant (70% of GDP ) or the Republic’s mix of low taxation – moderate public expenditure and low corporate tax economy are for the majority of voters are of no or little consequence . No Unionist is going to persuaded of voting for a UI because when he’s 65 he’ll get ‘free travel ‘ or a slightly higher retirement pension ?
As for present day Unionists using the economic & social line against unity ? Well that’s thanks to the present economic crisis isn’t it . They had to keep quiet on that front for a decade or more so they’re just making up for lost time eh . Anyway the ‘economic ‘ argument either way is a ‘trojan horse ‘ or should that be a stalking horse . Once the Irish economy recovers and the buying out sorry consolidation of the NI economy with the Republic resumes it’ll be something else .
Brit, its a complex argument but it can’t happen, Kosovo is recognised by very few countries because most countries won’t accept that argument because of what might happen within there own borders.
For example if repartitioned happened what barrier is there to an independent Cornwall, a indepentent Highlands, or a republic of Luton allied with Ireland.
Would Spain recognise this new state and ignore the Basque region.
Tinhat,yes its pie in the sky, however, that seems to be a hurdle that is been crossed, the problem is everyone needs to discuss it to make the conversation worthwhile.
Random Quotes, nationalist parties can’t talk to brick walls, the hardline unionists on this site normally sign off from debates like this with ‘convince me then’ statements. I guess its like selling anything, you got to know what the customer wants to buy, unless unionist have a conversation about what they want from any future UI how do nationalists convince them that they can have it.
This is the problem however, unionists are made to believe that to have the conversation is to admit defeat, hence Britneys and Dunreavys and co standard ‘we want to be British, and we ain’t discussing it line’
Further compounded by the fact that unionism won’t have a conversation with nationalists regarding the benefits of remaining within the UK apart from ‘social and economic reasons’
Brit-
“Assuming the loyalists (or perhaps Ulster-Scots Nationalists as they would now become) eschewed the gun and bomb and started a movement for independece for their Ulster-Scots state in Down and Antrim – perhaps federated with Scotland.
Under basic principles of self-determination (and subject to equal rights for Catholics in the new Ulster-Scots republic) it is difficult to see how Irish Nationalists could argue against such a re-partition? ”
They could argue against it because they have accepted the principle of consent and have wound up all use of gun or bomb.The Belfast agreement is being implemented peacefully by Republicans so although they cannot disown the violent past, they can point to the end of it as justification of future political positioning.
Secondly, the hypothesis is that a fair percentage of unionists would have accepted a UI, and so self-determinism for who?
And don’t see Scotland wanting anything got to do with them.
“No Unionist is going to persuaded of voting for a UI because when he’s 65 he’ll get ‘free travel ’ or a slightly higher retirement pension ?”
Greenflag, yet we are told that a large number of nationalists would forsake a UI for this very reason.
Surveys show an increasing number of young unionists, not identifying themselves as unionist, so re-ask that question without the unionist or Irish element it would be “as an OAP would you like free travel and a higher pension?” how many OAPs would say no?
posted by Kathy C
Here’s a ‘what if”….the economy in england gets worse…and they make cut backs and cut backs to northern ireland….it would make for an intersting scenerio
Hi Kathy,
it would IMO underline the fact that the economic argument doesn’t matter to most people. Unionists won’t become Nationalists nor vice versa for an insignificant monetary gain.
Brit,
‘Under basic principles of self-determination (and subject to equal rights for Catholics in the new Ulster-Scots republic) it is difficult to see how Irish Nationalists could argue against such a re-partition? ‘
Correct . I’ve made that point several times and been rewarded with brickbats by the all or nothing /historical /geographic destiny purveyors of the incorruptible God ot like 32 county island Republic .
As for a ‘federation’ with Scotland for the remaining ‘unionist ‘ rump in eastern ulster all I will say is that the Scots made a bid for Ireland the wanst back in the mid 14th century and Edward the Bruce (Robert’s brother and putative new King of Ireland left his head behind at the Battle of Faughart in modern day County Louth .
The nationalist minded Scots will nae want to take on board an expensive public sector spoiled orphan. And they certainly don’t want to upset the 1.5 million first, second and third generation Micks in Scotland who would consider adopting ‘orange ‘ ulster in the same way that a healthy family would consider adopting a third world refugee suffering from necrotising fascisitis or ebola;)
The best bet economically for a repartitoned Orange State would be ‘direct rule ‘ from Westminster and to have the status if not of a prosperous Hampshire then at least the modest cold comfort of a Sunderland /Middlesborough regional identity .
“They could argue against it because they have accepted the principle of consent and have wound up all use of gun or bomb.The Belfast agreement is being implemented peacefully by Republicans so although they cannot disown the violent past, they can point to the end of it as justification of future political positioning.”
The Principle of consent means that the people of NI decide on its constitutional status (and, of course that the people of RoI have a veto on whether NI gets to join them but doubt that is ever going to be an issue). So far so standard self-determination. There is nothing explicit or implicit in it which says that some part of the Republic cannot secede at a later date. Consent can be given and subsequently withdrawn.
Even with a 60% pro UI vote and depending on demographical changes it could be that 80-90% of Protestants were against being part of RoI. They want some sort of mini-statelet in County Down and Antrim, with a voluntary population exchange for loyalists in the other 4 counties that is as much their right as is the right of the Scots, Welsh or Cornish to secede from the UK(if they want to).
“Secondly, the hypothesis is that a fair percentage of unionists would have accepted a UI, and so self-determinism for who?
And don’t see Scotland wanting anything got to do with them.”
Outside Glasgae and West Coast you’re probably right. Bit like the Flemish trying to join up with the Dutch.
All in all, there’s a fair percentage of young ‘unionists’ that could be swayed towards the idea of a UI. Going abroad its much more favourable to be recognised as ‘Irish’ than ‘British’.
The thought of being represented by the DUP is enough to make any unionist jump ship! The simple opening of the new section of the Ulster-American folk park was turned into an ‘Ulster-Scots’ event by Nelson McCausland, who had to correct himself by reiterating that it wasn’t ulster people, but ulster-scots people who went to America. Its definately people like him who would sway me towards a UI if only to get him to shut up.
Fin ,
‘we are told that a large number of nationalists would forsake a UI for this very reason’
At base we are all or nearly all ‘prostitutes ‘ when it comes to the colour of the money . Offer me a 2,000 pound sterling a week old age pension if I would but vote to rejoin the UK and I would be sorely tempted and probably convinced (despite the threat of devaluation ) but then I’m just a grasping atheistic materialist opportunistic greedy selfish bastard and am comfortable with that
. Offer me 20 pounds a week extra and I would’nt scratch my arse to be bothered . I suspect many Unionists & Irish nationalists within NI would think along similar lines vis a vis either a UI or a new Union.
As for the younger generation of Unionists I confess to not having an idea how they think or even if they think nor have I any great desire to find out . It’s the old ‘bastards’ who do the voting anyway
“Going abroad its much more favourable to be recognised as ‘Irish’ than ‘British’”
So you wave the Jack in Belfast and then come on all blarney stone while chatting up the birds (or blokes?) in Spain. Very loyal!
It is amazing how popular the Irish are – or maybe its not at all amazing – across Europe particularly in places like Spain. Suspect it is a somewhat out-dated and archaic concept of Irishness which they are all so in love with.
Brits not really very loved although much more acceptable to be Scots or Welsh (particularly in a strongly anti-English way) than English.
Us English are a bit like Millwall. No one likes us we dont care. I take it as a back handed compliment although I have been very embarrased by the behavior of some English people in European capitals and in Spanish and Cypriot resorts.
Brit
“Bit like the Flemish trying to join up with the Dutch.”
Divided by a common language!
Since the advent of Flemish commercial channels, Dutch-speaking Belgians have more or less stopped tuning in to their neighbours with the result that, barely a decade or so later, Dutch soap operas are now subtitled when rebroadcast in Flanders, as viewers complain that they can’t understand all that Ollands. Then again, Flemish broadcasters also regularly subtitle Flemings whose accents they consider too thick for their compatriots to decipher.
Sounds more than a bit like Glasgow and the west coast!!
fin
I don’t know what my sense of being Irish or British is relative to anyone else or who the “rest of us” is. I guess when I am in Ireland I feel at home and comfortable with the people, culture and surroundings. Likewise, if arriving in London from overseas I can equally feel comfortable in familiar surroundings.
I have been fortunate enough to travel and live overseas and experience many different cultures. That can help give you a different perspective and view on what are priorities in life. The issue of sovereignty is important but a long way from being the most important thing to me. I can easily live with either flag over Stormont, or both. In the end neither Dublin or London can make us love each other. We need to work that one out and getting hung up on this issue can be a block to that. Better to start with the basics of building personal relationships and see where it goes over the years or generations. As I suggested earlier, try starting in the schools.
I have never waved a union jack in Belfast or anywhere else for that matter. Nor have I chatted up blokes in Spain, or anywhere else for that matter. What I’m saying is, you can be both Irish and British. But abroad the Irish are treated more favourably than the British, or as you pointed out, more specifically, the English. By the way, don’t take the fact no-one likes you as a back-handed compliment, its most definitely not meant to be!
sorry Brit it doesn’t work like that, to gain independence you need to show some pedigree ie to have been independent in your history at some time, hence why Kosovo has struggled to be recognised outside of a few countries
No one likes us. We dont care.
Its just prejudice, at bottom the same as racism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. No one has a monopoloy and no one is immune.
Prejudice against the English does not, of course, resonate in the same way as prejudice against Jews or Blacks, given that the English have not been subjected to holocausts or enslavement. But it is ultimately the same reactionary ignorance.
Being a Londoner is a much stronger part of my identity than being English (the latter is really just supporting England at football and cricket). That said I did grow up in a part of London where walking down the High road in an England top could (10-20 years ago) lead to getting verbals if not a bit of a kicking. That has made be a bit of a Billy Bragg type trying to fit English patriotism into a progressive shape.
So I get grief from the Irish for being British, grief from the Scots and Welsh (and Irish) for being English, and grief from the English for being part of the capital which is characterised either by hordes of murderous drug crazed youths, or ghettoised Islamists or by bruschetta eating ivory tower middle class elitist liberals depending on which stereotype fits best.
The place which I relate to most is NYC.
“But abroad the Irish are treated more favourably than the British”
Where?
I’ve been married to an English girl for ten years. I’ve yet to enjoy the chance to show off my superior VIP Irish treatment.
On a recent trip to Boston a tour guide kept making points like “of course no-one ever said ‘the British are coming’ because at the time we were all British…and Britain is of course our most faithful ally”. If you can’t get this superior treatment in Boston where can you get it?
“to have been independent in your history at some time”
Sounds like a bizarre and arbitrary criteria. So no new nations can come to exist? What about Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan?
As far as I was aware Ireland was only ever united as a nation under the British state/crown so by your logic they dont have the right “pedigree”
Brit-
“As far as I was aware Ireland was only ever united as a nation under the British state/crown so by your logic they dont have the right “pedigree”
what about Máel Sechnaill?
Although I do agree that the criteria is arbitary in this case.Is there any criteria or is it mostly about force?
That was way before nationalism and nation-states mate – hence before the concept of national self-determination.
The criteria basically follows the principles of sovereighty residing in the people and of democracy. If a defined group, nation, region, people – or a majority of them – want to secede to form their own nation or state they have a collective legal and moral right to do so. Setting up a new state (USA, Israel) is different because of the natives.
“I have never waved a union jack in Belfast or anywhere else for that matter. Nor have I chatted up blokes in Spain, or anywhere else for that matter”
I was being tongue in cheek but was alluding to a trait, mildly amusing, for Ulster Prods to come over all Irish when it helps in the popularity or pulling stakes. It doesnt really have any political signficance and wasnt really directed at you personally.
My Ulster Prod second generation (ie English) mate lived in Spain for years and proudly wore his NI football top and struggled to explain to the locals that he was English but Irish but not Irish but actually British.
Brit-
“The criteria basically follows the principles of sovereighty residing in the people and of democracy. If a defined group, nation, region, people – or a majority of them – want to secede to form their own nation or state they have a collective legal and moral right to do so. Setting up a new state (USA, Israel) is different because of the natives. ”
You’ve sidestepped the point.
Who decides what is a group,nation,region,or people?If it could only be so simple.You have answered that the group decides what is a group,nation decides what is a nation………
Let’s discuss the criteria.
for example,historical identity.Population landmass equilibrium.Mass movement of minorities.Subsequent border controls.Economic viability.Sheer bloody-mindedness.Force.strategic interests.Non-strategic interests.Currency.Equality for minorities.the continuity of that minority’s right to an alien state representation.
At the end of the day, whatever the shinners or Adams do or say, they will never persuade unionists to accept a U.I. Too many unionists died because of them and their desire for a U.I. For goodness sake I don’t know a single unionist who would give their allegiance to the irish tricolour as it is deemed as the provos flag and most of my friends are non card carrying unionists. Unionists with a small u.
It is up to the politicians and the moderate nationlists in the south to sell the idea of U.I. The provos have poisoned ( to the mind of many unionists) things like irish language and the G.A.A.
They have made a flag which every one could have rallied round redundant if an U.I. was to ever happen. I don’t know any unionists who love or even like the S.S. They might tolerate it at rugby games but thats as far as it goes.
As far as I can see there is no desire in mainstream parties in the south for unity. They don’t want a million people who will refuse to give their loyalty to the state. The parties in the south need to bypass the shinners and even the s.d.l.p. and speak to the ordinary unionists who are willing to listen. Tell us about this new Ireland and how we will fit in. How we can retain our britishness. Tell us about how they will be willing to agree new emblems and anthems which every one can give their allegiance to. Will this Ireland be a federal Ireland? Until this happens 50%+1 is, I’m afraid, a disaster waiting to happen. The shinners can waffle all they like but they will never unite the people of this island. Not in a million years.
Me personally – i’m happy as a unionist though I am trying to embrace a bit more of the irish side of our culture… as long as I don’t have to embrace the republican movement along with it.
Maybe the trick is to embrace our greater Europeaness.
Last one to claim at least two state allegiances is an inbred throwback!
Brit ,
‘although I have been very embarrased by the behavior of some English people in European capitals and in Spanish and Cypriot resorts’
Save us from the storms oh Lord
And from the English travelling abroad
Old Irish prayer – The old Polish and French equivalents translate as
‘Save us from the storms oh Lord
And from the Germans travelling abroad
Anyway the English did’nt emerge without a struggle or two or even three or four with a few near misses 1588, 1804, and 1940 . There was that several centuries circa 900 AD during which the Danes carved out the eastern half of England from the west and the language border between the two enabled the border language to develop a simple grammar and uninflected words which helped give English it’s universality ? And then the poor Englishry got crapped on by the Norman French for several centuries and would have ended up losing their language had it not been for the Black Death carrying off more of the Norman French speaking educated class thus making space for upwordly mobile Saxons on the eye out for the main chance ?
So like a battered and bruised child the English eventually grew up to repeat the ‘battering’ process on their neighbours the Scots , Welsh and eventually the Irish last of all . This real world battery training stood them in good stead for the later 25% world conquest of imperial times in which they drafted the ‘defeated’ nations of Scots ,Irish and Welsh into battering much weaker nations under the common name of Britain .
No need for any present day English to feel guilty about that . The Irish/Welsh/Scots would have done similar at the time if the boot had been on the other foot . England was always advantaged by being closer to Rome i.e civilisation and the continent and thus the first to absorb new ideas , technologies etc etc .
I wonder what Irish history would have been like had the island of Ireland been located between England and Holland /France or closer to Spain ? Perhaps we would have become Flemings speaking a language akin to a disease of the throat
Location is critical in business and in matters political and historical . Ask any Pole or Belgian. They can’t believe how “lucky ” Ireland is in it’s ‘location’ away from all the bother of competing French , British , German , Russian and earlier Spanish/Austrian /Italian empire builders!
As for the English ? . They are like arsenic . A tonic in small doses but in a Millwall crowd best avoided if one values life and limb
?
But then you could say that about any ‘nationality’ eh even the Irish and most certainly the Germans , Russians and Chinese
That’s the spirit Greenflag.
There’s no truth like the whole truth.
Have you been reading Melvyn Bragg?
““to have been independent in your history at some time”
Sounds like a bizarre and arbitrary criteria. So no new nations can come to exist? What about Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan?
As far as I was aware Ireland was only ever united as a nation under the British state/crown so by your logic they dont have the right “pedigree” ”
Jesus wept Brit, of any 3 countries to pick and to cliam they are new, fuck me, have you got a bible to hand, these countries predate England by a couple of millenia
That said I did grow up in a part of London where walking down the High road in an England top could (10-20 years ago)
er Brit, the Euro was held in England when?? oh yeah 1996 slap bang in the middle of the period you rambling on about. Strangely enough I lived in london then as well, tell me, who exactly gave ‘verbal’ to the tens of thousands of footie fans in England football tops who piled into pubs to watch the games, for fucks sake Brit cop yerself on.
“Have you been reading Melvyn Bragg?”
Bettany Hughes, I’d guess.
Ireland was geographically attached to what is now North America. Typical bad luck of the Irish that we should break away from Canada and float toward the heathen English.
Reunification would only be feasible if the British nation in NI was systematically indoctrinated with propaganda to convince them that they are Irish. Instead, the propaganda is aimed at indoctrinating the Irish nation with the notion that the nation doesn’t need to be sovereign, so control of the state may be granted to foreign state and to foreign organisations. As Irish nation that cannot determine its own affairs is less offensive to those who hold the view that the Irish nation never had any right to national self-determination and, ergo, no right to its nation-state.
My favourite solution to NI would be to build a nuclear power plant along the border and arrange an ‘accident’ when the wind is blowing in the appropriate direction. Alas, that would be agin the rules, so that’ll just have to remain as a sweet dream.
Failing that, a fair repartition that allows the British nation to determine its own affairs would be the best option. Since one nation does not have any right to govern another nation, the Irish nation would not have any right to govern them even if they were out-voted on a unity poll. They won’t be, of course, since only 60% of NI Catholics regard themselves as Irish, and a good proportion of that 60% will be economically dependent upon the continuance of British rule.
dave-”fair repartition that allows the British nation to determine its own affairs would be the best option. Since one nation does not have any right to govern another nation, the Irish nation would not have any right to govern them even if they were out-voted on a unity poll.”
This implies that Britain has no right to govern Northern Irish Irish citizens.Can you not see that the issue is far from the mathematical clarity you wish to impose on the state-let.The problem is quantum in nature and far from your Newtonian view.
“This implies that Britain has no right to govern Northern Irish Irish citizens.”
Implies it? It states it in plain English – “one nation does not have any right to govern another nation”
Can you not see that the issue is far from the mathematical clarity you wish to impose on the state-let.The problem is quantum in nature and far from your Newtonian view.
Oh dear…
I hate to break the news to you but your science teacher was having a wee laugh at your expense when he told you that quantum theory applies to politics. Likewise, Complexity theory and Chaos Theory does not apply to politics, so please spare me the customary shite about evolutionary dynamics, Bufferfly effects, and emergent phenomena, et al, and how politics isn’t deterministic.
What does apply in politics are constitutions, legalities, and treaties. You know… that wee document you signed that declared that Northern Ireland rightfully belongs to the UK, and that you merely have an aspiration to Irish self-determination rather than a right to it? That’s hard-core deterministic that won’t be altered by the flapping of a butterfly’s wings.
Now, to broaden your political education from what your science teacher told you, here’s a wee (it’s my mastery of Ulster-Scots) quote from Machiavelli: “Whoever takes upon him to reform the government of a city, must, if his measures are to be well received and carried out with general approval, preserve at least the semblance of existing methods, so as not to appear to the people to have made any change in the old order of things; although, in truth, the new ordinances differ altogether from those which they replace. For when this is attended to, the mass of mankind accept what seems as what is; nay, are often touched more nearly by appearances than by realities.”
“You know… that wee document you signed that declared that Northern Ireland rightfully belongs to the UK”
Alternatively that document states that Northern Ireland belongs to the people of Northern Ireland as it gives them discretion to choose, by their own majority, which state (with guaranteed acceptance by the UK and the Republic?) Northern Ireland is incorporated into.
Alan – Newtonards
“They don’t want a million people”
While I think your point is well written and very valid – it is weakened by this.
There haven’t been anywhere near 1 million Unionists for 30 years and there sure aren’t now.
There is a Unionist majority – sure.
If Unionists weren’t concerned about the demographics, why are the UUP/Cons making a massive play for Catholic Unionists?
As I have said on other posts, the whole Sinn Fein 2016 thing was a pipe dream and most Nationalists realised it.
In my opinion, we are looking 20 – 25 years from now.
In the current economic climate, a UI is a non-starter – simple as that.
However, the current recession will be a distant memory in 10 years. The demographic changes have slowed but they are still moving in 1 direction.
I like the policy of wooing Unionists – that’s the right thing to do.
However, 50% + 1 is all that’s required.
The UK govt (of any persuasion) can’t wait to get out of here. Once 50%+1 happens, they’ll gladly hand it over and run like hell.
Fin – couple of responses:-
“Jesus wept Brit, of any 3 countries to pick and to cliam they are new, fuck me, have you got a bible to hand, these countries predate England by a couple of millenia”
Not really a bible man me. Israel as the modern Jewish secular state was born in 1948. There was no Zionism, no Jewish nationalism until the 19th Centurry. A Palestinian state as in a Gaza strip and the West Bank (and more contentiously Israel proper), has never existed. The concept of Palestinians as a distinct nation (as opposed to arabs living in the geography now in Palestine)only really devloped in the mid 20th C. Before being occupied by Israel those territories were part of Egypt/Jordan, before that the British mandate and before that the Ottoman empire.
As for Kurdistan well I confess to not knowing the history in great detail but I am not aware of any modern Kurdish nation state existing before.
“That said I did grow up in a part of London where walking down the High road in an England top could (10-20 years ago)”
“Brit, the Euro was held in England when?? oh yeah 1996 slap bang in the middle of the period you rambling on about. Strangely enough I lived in london then as well, tell me, who exactly gave ‘verbal’ to the tens of thousands of footie fans in England football tops who piled into pubs to watch the games, for fucks sake Brit cop yerself on”
You think I am making it up, fine.
My nearest High Road is Kilburn High Road (and always has been). In bygone days of yore it was, as I am sure you know, very Irish (things have changed somewhat) – first and second generation. Lots Republic and Celtic tops and collections for “the boys”. Also the National club on the High Road where the Irish nat. anthem was played every night. The nearest public buidling to me growing up was a synagogue (now a mosque) and the second nearest was the Irish cultural centre. I watched Ireland v Italy in one of the World Cups in McGoverns and it was the best atmosphere I’ve ever experiend.
I know someone who was beaten up for wearing an England top in the late 80s early nineties and back in the days wearing such a top on the High Street, let alone one of the pubs, was asking for trouble (a Gers top suicidal). I know of some Chelsea fans who decided to sing the British national anthem in Biddy Mulligans and took a hiding (they were probbly NF scumbags who deserved it mind).
I like the policy of wooing Unionists – that’s the right thing to do.
It is Billy.
What we need is a campaign that deals town by town, constituent group by constituent group with the pros and cons of Irish unity. We need facts and figures.
What’s best for kids?
What’s best for the elderly?
What’s best for small business?
What’s best for large business?
What’s best for civil servants?
What’s best for Belfast?
What’s best for L’Derry?
What’s best for the borders?
No-one’s making this arguments (although Mack’s tried here). We’re stuck in “What’s best for Catholics” and “What’s best for Prods”, or even worse, the whining childishness of “what’s fair?”.
The best way to break these stale arguments is to bring in the full involvement of southern parties. Let them commit to working to make NI more prosperous so that if unity does come their southern constituents aren’t disadvantaged and if not they’ve at least secured the peace and honoured their commitments to work for the whole of the Irish people.
Dave-
“This implies that Britain has no right to govern Northern Irish Irish citizens.”
Implies it? It states it in plain English – “one nation does not have any right to govern another nation”
So we agree that Irish citizens in the north are part of the nation if not nation state.
and then this in the same post-
“What does apply in politics are constitutions, legalities, and treaties. You know… that wee document you signed that declared that Northern Ireland rightfully belongs to the UK, and that you merely have an aspiration to Irish self-determination rather than a right to it?”
You are saying that the only way the nation can be the nation state is by use of force.Did you come across this quote??
Machiavelli-”The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.”
I disagree.I don’t believe the Irish nation state has the right to rule northerners without the consent of them per usual democracy.Life’s a bitch but this is not the end of history.
Otto,
‘There’s no truth like the whole truth’
Indeed and it did’nt start in 1169, 1641, 1690 , 1798 , 1912, 1916, 1918 , 1920 ,1969 , 1989 or even back in 40,000 BC either
Unfortunately or perhaps not, people lay more store in ‘partial ‘ truths ‘ given the short few decades of the average human life span and the even shorter attention span of human focus which nowadays seems to be heading for the length of time of a TV commercial break
.
It’s much easier that way for most people -saves having to think or face uncomfortable facts or unlearning ‘old’ myths and learning new ways and new ideas .
The full implications of the GFA have not yet sunk into the minds of the mass of people in NI. Even ‘Newtonian’ Dave with his ‘sovereignty’ kick is strangely obtuse when he adds up all the political facts and somehow comes to a conclusion that the Republic is going to have to accept politics NI style ? Rubbish of course but for Dave the God of all is ‘sovereignty’ .
The ‘unconscious ‘ mind has it’s own clock and it’s own way of digesting /absorbing what the conscious mind has rejected as indigestible. The Copernican theory of the Earth’s motion had to wait eighty years before it took ‘root’. The Darwinian concept of evolution was around before Darwin and it took a generation or more before Darwinian ‘natural selection’ became acceptable credo for most scientists. Even today there are those who still deny Darwin’s revolutionary changed view of man as being just the last remaining hominoid on the ‘primate ‘ tree . Those who cried ‘Where are the missing link fossils?’ now refuse to accept the evidence of molecular biologists and still prefer to hold on to the creationist nonsense of a 6,000 year old Earth and man being a ‘special ‘ creation of an ‘intelligent ‘ designer.
The collapse of the USSR took a couple of decades during which time the ‘conscious’ minds of millions of Russians and others finally accepted what their ‘unconscious ‘ minds had known for decades .i.e that a one party dictatorship of the new ‘communist’ class elite was not going to work in a fast changing world . There are many other examples from history . In 1800 the standard British view of Ireland was that it was better for Ireland to be ruled directly from Westminster . A hundred years later that majority view had changed to acceptance of Irish Home Rule and then to acceptance of an Irish Republic and to today’s ‘dictum’ for NI which seems to be on the lines of ‘you can have a UI or the status quo as long as the majority within NI vote for it.
All the efforts of the pro UI camp by means of ‘reasoned’ argument or vice versa those of the pro Union camp rely on the assumption that ‘homo sapiens’ though occasionally blinded by emotion , is basically a rational animal and always fully aware of the motives of his/her own actions and beliefs. This assumption is not always seen when one looks at the historical evidence.
As for the so called ‘crisis’ in Irish nationalism I can only say that Mick’s point if it has any validity at all it relates to ‘party ‘ politics in Northern Ireland for reasons which are local and particular to the new political dispensation and it’s workings in that State . Irish nationalism by which I mean ‘constitutional’ nationalism is still the predominant political starting point for the great majority on this island . It’s on that stable base that any political future for the island will have to be based . ‘Unionism ‘ cannot provide that base . At best it can only survive as a stand alone ‘force’ in a repartitioned NI.
‘Have you been reading Melvin Bragg’
Ages ago also Schama , O’Mallie, TP Coogan , McKee , Foster , Ferriter, Curtis etc etc . Right now I’m taking a break from the history of politics /language and am digesting ‘Why Evolution is true ‘ by Professor Jerry A Coyne of the University of Chicago and Nick Lane’s (University College London) cutting edge scientific findings in ‘Life Ascending ‘
And I urge all who seek solace in a 6,000 year old specially created world by God the universal trickster to examine their vestigial tails and their ‘useless’ appendix and ask themselves why they ( coccyx and appendix ) were ‘created’ by the great cosmic designer in chief
?
‘
Dave ,
‘Likewise, Complexity theory and Chaos Theory does not apply to politics, so please spare me the customary shite about evolutionary dynamics, Bufferfly effects, and emergent phenomena, et al, and how politics isn’t deterministic.’
It doesn’t ? Anybody who knows a whit about what happened during the Wall St ad sub prime mortgage meltdown would find ‘complexity theory’ light relief in comparison to the arcane mathematics of hedge fund plays and the finer points of CDO’s etc etc . As for Chaos theory ? I would have no difficulty in describint the ‘evolution ‘ of NI over the past 40 years to it’s present state as ‘chaotic’ for much of the time .
And like it or not ‘evolutionary dynamics ‘ does play a role as does circumstance and juxtaposition of economic and political trends and even the role of certain individuals who can and have changed ‘history’.