Northern Ireland and the 2011 UK census

Godot.

With factors such as Catholics 'breeding' at a faster rate than Protestants and Polish immigration slightly tipping it further, is there a possibility of RCs 'overtaking' the Protestant community? And might a referendum be called in a year or two if this is the case? I'm aware not all Catholics are necessarily nationalists and not all Protestants are unionists, incidentally.

amacachi

No, because it's in the younger age groups that are making the biggest difference and they can't vote. Also it'll take a majority of Nationalist representative politicians which is a bit away with some constituencies still fairly well gerrymandered.

deise go deo

A referendum based on the fact that Catholics hapened to 'outbreed' prodestants probably wouldent go down to well.

amacachi

deise go deo wrote: »

A referendum based on the fact that Catholics hapened to 'outbreed' prodestants probably wouldent go down to well.

It's to do with what the majority of a population wants, obviously the OP should leave it to politicians or PR consultants to come up with the specific language used in any decision.

Wolfe Tone

No chance. There are currently more catholics in school than unionists so in maybe 30 years or so, but not next year.

gurramok

In these type of census, they should really ask 'Do you come from a Unionist or Nationalist background' instead of saying 'do you come from a Catholic or Protestant background'.

Anyway, from the last census most pundits quoting from the 2001 results have said that the majority of under 35's are Catholic so yes the forthcoming census will be interesting

RDM_83 again

The Blog below is/ was very informative (the author is sadly RIP)

http://ulstersdoomed.blogspot.com/search/label/Demography

Its obvious from the title what "side" he's coming from but very good analysis


"In these type of census, they should really ask 'Do you come from a Unionist or Nationalist background' instead of saying 'do you come from a Catholic or Protestant background'."

They sort of do, same link

KeithAFC

Won't make any difference.

KeithAFC

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The Blog below is/ was very informative (the author is sadly RIP)

http://ulstersdoomed.blogspot.com/search/label/Demography

Its obvious from the title what "side" he's coming from but very good analysis


"In these type of census, they should really ask 'Do you come from a Unionist or Nationalist background' instead of saying 'do you come from a Catholic or Protestant background'."

They sort of do, same link

lol, i got to laugh at that blog. The only way a United Ireland will ever happen is if Unionists decide for it to happen and vote for it.

demonspawn

I really wish everyone would just drop the idea of a "united Ireland". Do Republicans honestly believe that the people of the North want to be a part of this sham of a country? If I were a citizen of NI, I'd fight tooth and nail to stay out of the Republic, and I have no political affiliation whatsoever.

If anything, the North should be an independent state. Ulster has always been culturally independent from the rest of Ireland, it would only make sense to give them their own country.

RDM_83 again

KeithAFC
Don't know if thats true the demographic if you bothered to read a bit more of it you'd realise that the unionist population is currently at its peak of people in the ages groups most likely to vote where as there is a bulge in the nationalist voting population coming down the line.

demonspawn
think that point is pretty valid (though you can't be a citizen of NI!) but if the north joined the ROI it would change BOTH countries dramatically (for a start there would no longer be the same screwed up distribution of city sizes Belfast having potential as a real 2nd capitol unlike Cork) but for me the major question is what would the unionist population do in a majority nationalist NI with a highly devolved goverment, would they consider that a whole Ireland island would be less of a "cold house", stay in the status quo and make use of Westminster or perhaps agree to a repartition to maintain the state NI was designed to be, A Unionist/Ulster scots "Israel" (mean that with all the negative conitations)

KeithAFC

RDM_83 again wrote: »

KeithAFC
Don't know if thats true the demographic if you bothered to read a bit more of it you'd realise that the unionist population is currently at its peak of people in the ages groups most likely to vote where as there is a bulge in the nationalist voting population coming down the line.

demonspawn
think that point is pretty valid (though you can't be a citizen of NI!) but if the north joined the ROI it would change BOTH countries dramatically (for a start there would no longer be the same screwed up distribution of city sizes Belfast having potential as a real 2nd capitol unlike Cork) but for me the major question is what would the unionist population do in a majority nationalist NI with a highly devolved goverment, would they consider that a whole Ireland island would be less of a "cold house", stay in the status quo and make use of Westminster or perhaps agree to a repartition to maintain the state NI was designed to be, A Unionist/Ulster scots "Israel" (mean that with all the negative conitations)

Do you know how silly this argument about birth rate is? Do you want more unionists to get shagging more or something? lol. A bit of a reality check please.

Northern Ireland needs peace for now, simple as that. The country is enjoying some of the best times in decades because in general, we have peace which both sides want.

Saying there will be a United Ireland because nationalists are having more kids than unionists, such talk is just silly. What Northern Ireland needs is another 20-30 years of peace, lets learn to get on with each other, lets get rid of segregated schools and our next generation will grow up being best friends and then we can talk about a United Ireland or staying in the Union.

Birth rate has nothing to do with it. The last thing we want is the IRA coming back or people joining the UVF and taking the vow.

demonspawn

RDM_83 again wrote: »

demonspawn
think that point is pretty valid (though you can't be a citizen of NI!) but if the north joined the ROI it would change BOTH countries dramatically (for a start there would no longer be the same screwed up distribution of city sizes Belfast having potential as a real 2nd capitol unlike Cork) but for me the major question is what would the unionist population do in a majority nationalist NI with a highly devolved goverment, would they consider that a whole Ireland island would be less of a "cold house", stay in the status quo and make use of Westminster or perhaps agree to a repartition to maintain the state NI was designed to be, A Unionist/Ulster scots "Israel" (mean that with all the negative conitations)

I think NI would gain a massive amount of respect and support from the international community if it decided to stand on it own and told both Ireland and Britain to piss off. Both countries would eventually come to accept this new situation sooner or later, probably sooner than later. NI is a beautiful and culturally rich region with a proud, intelligent population (for the most part). I believe both the Republic and the UK would be jumping at an opportunity to do business.

Opponents could simply leave NI if they didn't like an independent state, there would be no reason to stay. Nationalists and Unionists could be given to choice of dual citizenship between NI and the Republic and NI and the UK respectively, if they so wished. Dealing with extremists would become a lot easier as NI could just deport any troublemakers back to their respective countries.

Of course this is all just fantasy but I don't see why it wouldn't work, or at least why they couldn't try it for a few years. If they didn't like it or it caused more problems than it solved they could always go back to where they were.

KeithAFC

Question is which side would like it more or accept it better? Call me biased but i doubt Republicans would take it well.

Zambia

demonspawn wrote: »

If anything, the North should be an independent state. Ulster has always been culturally independent from the rest of Ireland, it would only make sense to give them their own country.

That state would sink in the first month under its public sector and social welfare bill.

The north by itself cannot survive.

Denerick

Zambia232 wrote: »

That state would sink in the first month under its public sector and social welfare bill.

The north by itself cannot survive.

Very true. Perhaps in the 1920s when Ulster actually had a viable industrial base. But not now. The economy would collapse without the public sector and the state would degenerate into nothingness.

Why is it taken for granted that all Northern Catholics would actively seek a united Ireland? Most are only passively interested in the idea. Its hard to care for abstract concepts like this; which is why the IRA were so adept at playing at the heartstrings and inventing a cult of martyrdom.

Wolfe Tone

Why is it taken for granted that all Northern Catholics would actively seek a united Ireland?

I imagine the vast majority would vote for a UI if given the chance. Presumably that is assumed due to the treatment of catholics in the past and to a much lesser extent, today.

bmaxi

Denerick wrote: »

Very true. Perhaps in the 1920s when Ulster actually had a viable industrial base. But not now. The economy would collapse without the public sector and the state would degenerate into nothingness.

Why is it taken for granted that all Northern Catholics would actively seek a united Ireland? Most are only passively interested in the idea. Its hard to care for abstract concepts like this; which is why the IRA were so adept at playing at the heartstrings and inventing a cult of martyrdom.

Certainly in my recent visits, I've found very little appetite among middle class Catholics for a united Ireland. The attitude seems to be "if it happens it happens", which, strangely enough seems to be the attitude of middle class Protestants too.
Personally, I think the campaign of the dissident Republicans only serves to push the likelihood of a united Ireland further away, maybe that's their aim.
Me, I don't care either way.

Denerick

bmaxi wrote: »

Personally, I think the campaign of the dissident Republicans only serves to push the likelihood of a united Ireland further away, maybe that's their aim.
Me, I don't care either way.

The dissidents truly are mindless, fascist scum. They hope to provoke reprisals and thus restart the Troubles all over again. I'd really love to catch one of them and leave them suspended over the grand canyon for at least a year, hanging by a tiny thread of rope, sustained with enough food and sustenance in order to just about exist and retain consciousness, in order to think about what they are doing to this island.

losthorizon

Hellooooooo who says we want NI. I dont. NI please stay away.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

The dissidents truly are mindless, fascist scum. They hope to provoke reprisals and thus restart the Troubles all over again. I'd really love to catch one of them and leave them suspended over the grand canyon for at least a year, hanging by a tiny thread of rope, sustained with enough food and sustenance in order to just about exist and retain consciousness, in order to think about what they are doing to this island.

Jayzus, don't want to get on your bad side... but violence is never the answer!


Anyway, do you reckon that the 6 could have survived independently in the early days? You touched on that earlier, care to elaborate? I was always under the impression tat part of the reason partition was accepted was that the 6 would be to small to survive and reunification would be an inevitability.

deise go deo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Jayzus, don't want to get on your bad side... but violence is never the answer!


Anyway, do you reckon that the 6 could have survived independently in the early days? You touched on that earlier, care to elaborate? I was always under the impression tat part of the reason partition was accepted was that the 6 would be to small to survive and reunification would be an inevitability.

They were under the impression that the boundary commision would give large parts of the north to the republic that would make the northern state unworkable.
That dident happen.

Bottle_of_Smoke

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The Blog below is/ was very informative (the author is sadly RIP)

http://ulstersdoomed.blogspot.com/search/label/Demography

Its obvious from the title what "side" he's coming from but very good analysis


"In these type of census, they should really ask 'Do you come from a Unionist or Nationalist background' instead of saying 'do you come from a Catholic or Protestant background'."

They sort of do, same link

That guy is definitely looking at the situation through green tinted glasses though. Look what he says a few blogs down

So when the votes are counted, on May 7 unionism should look closely at the combined nationalist score – because this represents the proportion of the electorate who 'unambiguously' support Irish reunification. If the proportion of the electorate that supports the two nationalist parties has increased from that of 2005 (41.8%, though without Kieran Deeny this would have been at least 1% higher) or 2001 (42.7%), then it is time to start worrying.[/B][/B]

No it doesn't mate. It represents the people who vote SDLP/SF. Doesn't mean they'd all vote yes to a united Ireland

junder

losthorizon wrote: »

Hellooooooo who says we want NI. I dont. NI please stay away.

Ok mate will do 

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Jayzus, don't want to get on your bad side... but violence is never the answer!

Anyway, do you reckon that the 6 could have survived independently in the early days? You touched on that earlier, care to elaborate? I was always under the impression tat part of the reason partition was accepted was that the 6 would be to small to survive and reunification would be an inevitability.

Certainly many of the founding fathers thought so. Collins was certain that the boundary commission would result in substantial land transfers to the republic (To be fair he was cynically mislead by George on this issue) He expected Tyrone, Fermanagh and the city of Derry to be transferred to the Free State. The rump Northern state would have been economically unviable, or so he thought.

In the 1920s Ulster was in some kind of economic decline from its industrial height of the late 19th century, but it still could have maintained a small industrial state. Take the example of Belgium for comparison. Belgium was highly industrialised, fractured and dispirate - just like Northern Ireland at the time.

This is all academic though as I don't believe anyone north or south was calling for a completely independent NI state. Furthermore, if the boundary commission actually resulted in large transfers, it would have made the north even more sustainable as it would have a much smaller Catholic/Nationalist population...

demonspawn

Zambia232 wrote: »

That state would sink in the first month under its public sector and social welfare bill.

The north by itself cannot survive.

Obviously certain political and economic structures would need to be changed to suit such a small country. The first few year will be hard and the people may have to take a hit to the wallet but it's an alternative to what we have today.

If the leaders of the Republic and the UK had any conscience whatsoever, they'd assist as much as possible to provide a smooth transition to an independent state in NI. One option would be for both countries to share the public sector bill for the new NI state for the first five years. That's just an example but if something like that was done then the north would stand a good chance of surviving as an independent state after the transition period.

I think both countries have to accept responsibility for the years of strife suffered by the people of NI. Now it's time to give something back for all the lives that have been taken or destroyed since this pointless conflict began.

Oh yeah, and a great place for a new NI government to start collecting funds would be to sieze the assets of all know members of paramilitary groups. I'd say that's a nice chuck of change. I they could legally do this by declaring all paramilitary groups as enemies of the state.

Essexboy

losthorizon wrote: »

Hellooooooo who says we want NI. I dont. NI please stay away.

FF do. That is why they are organising in the North.

Wolfe Tone

Essexboy wrote: »

FF do. That is why they are organising in the North.

Every major politial party has a UI as a stated aim.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Every major politial party has a UI as a stated aim.

So? Doesn't mean its going to happen.

Wolfe Tone

losthorizon wrote: »

Hellooooooo who says we want NI. I dont. NI please stay away.

Essexboy wrote: »

FF do. That is why they are organising in the North.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Every major politial party has a UI as a stated aim.

KeithAFC wrote: »

So? Doesn't mean its going to happen.

The clear point is that most people on this island want a UI. Most political parties do also.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The clear point is that most people on this island want a UI. Most political parties do also.

Your counting the republic, the republic is NOT Northern Ireland. The last thing we need is the UVF to come back ffs. Just leave it be.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

Your counting the republic, the republic is NOT Northern Ireland. The last thing we need is the UVF to come back ffs. Just leave it be.

Is an eventuality I feel. I could easily say "hey, last thing we need is the PIRA back, just give it up and let there be a UI"

Are you suggesting that a UI should not be allowed to come about due to the possibility of violence?

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Is an eventuality I feel. I could easily say "hey, last thing we need is the PIRA back, just give it up and let there be a UI"

Are you suggesting that a UI should not be allowed to come about due to the possibility of violence?

Possibility? You know at the moment there is just no chance of it happening and the wounds are too fresh. Like i said, for this to happen, everyone will need to want it to happen.

I don't see that happening for a good while, if it ever does happen.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

Possibility? You know at the moment there is just no chance of it happening and the wounds are too fresh. Like i said, for this to happen, everyone will need to want it to happen.

I don't see that happening for a good while, if it ever does happen.

Not everyone, only the unionists favorite word(when it suits them) a majority.

KeithAFC

You don't have the majority.

bmaxi

No point in getting the handbags out again. What sort of United Ireland would it be if the Unionist population didn't want it? We've all got to want it, otherwise we're only setting up years more of conflict.
As one who was born and bred in the Republic, I don't want to see Unionists in a United Ireland against their will. What's the point in that, if it just leads to the situation of the last forty years being played out in reverse?
Getting the Churches out of our schools is a bigger priority IMO, if people are not educated to be different, they might just see how much they have in common. .

Zambia

demonspawn wrote: »

Obviously certain political and economic structures would need to be changed to suit such a small country. The first few year will be hard and the people may have to take a hit to the wallet but it's an alternative to what we have today.

If the leaders of the Republic and the UK had any conscience whatsoever, they'd assist as much as possible to provide a smooth transition to an independent state in NI. One option would be for both countries to share the public sector bill for the new NI state for the first five years. That's just an example but if something like that was done then the north would stand a good chance of surviving as an independent state after the transition period.

I think both countries have to accept responsibility for the years of strife suffered by the people of NI. Now it's time to give something back for all the lives that have been taken or destroyed since this pointless conflict began.

Oh yeah, and a great place for a new NI government to start collecting funds would be to sieze the assets of all know members of paramilitary groups. I'd say that's a nice chuck of change. I they could legally do this by declaring all paramilitary groups as enemies of the state.

Ireland could not pay that bill even at the height of the tiger. Last I looked 7 out of every 10 working age people worked for the state 1/10 was on long term benefits so that is 1.5/10 people who are probably mostly employed making pasties suppers for the other 8/10.

On my street in Belfast you know what we called people with jobs ? Polish

demonspawn

bmaxi wrote: »

Getting the Churches out of our schools is a bigger priority IMO,

+1 x infinity

The Church has held this country back for far too long. It's time to show them the door, or at least put them in their place.....prison.

demonspawn

Zambia232 wrote: »

Ireland could not pay that bill even at the height of the tiger. Last I looked 7 out of every 10 working age people worked for the state 1/10 was on long term benefits so that is 1.5/10 people who are probably mostly employed making pasties suppers for the other 8/10.

On my street in Belfast you know what we called people with jobs ? Polish

I'd love to see where you get your statistics from. They must have been compiled at the Center for Numerical Dyslexia.

I don't know if your last comment was a stab at the Polish or NI's lax immigration policy. Please elaborate.

Zambia

demonspawn wrote: »

I'd love to see where you get your statistics from. They must have been compiled at the Center for Numerical Dyslexia.

I don't know if your last comment was a stab at the Polish or NI's lax immigration policy. Please elaborate.

Sadly my stats could be wrong but they are in the ball park. I would love to be proved wrong. Mostly they are based on news reports from my time in the north. Please tell me they are.

Edit
Best I can estimate is after internet research is 4 of every ten in the public sector. In which case increase the pastie supper brigade to make up the difference. In the long run the whole country is being funded to an unsustainable degree by the UK purse.

The second is a stab at the several households on my street who did nothing but drag their sorry office to the bank for the social.

OS119

Zambia232 wrote: »

...Best I can estimate is after internet research is 4 of every ten in the public sector. In which case increase the pastie supper brigade to make up the difference. In the long run the whole country is being funded to an unsustainable degree by the UK purse....

its worth noting that not only is NI quite a culturally/economicly 'statist' bit of the UK - a bit like the NE of England, Merseyside or the Central belt of Scotland - but that the central government bits of the NI economy mostly serve non-NI functions: like the big DWP and HMRC offices in Belfast. none of them would survive contact with a 'parting of the ways' between the UK and NI - can anyone see any British political party that wanted to be elected in the next 30 years funding jobs in what would be 'another country' while sacking PS workers in Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow or Liverpool?

much as i'd like NI to float off into the Atlantic tomorow and never be seen or heard of again, i can't see any peaceful (ish) alternative to a subsidised statelet attached to either the UK or RoI which a sizable proportion (90% or so) are at least not violently opposed to.

doesn't matter which it is, as long as somebody pays the bills and pretends to be glad to be connected to those lovely people...

OhNoYouDidn't

There is some baffling naivity on this thread, largely from unionist posters.

The GFA is very clear. At any point there can be a refferendum on the status of the 6 counties, but this can only be called once a decade.

SF will presumably call it at some point when they think the demographics suit and if 50.1% vote for a UI, a UI is what we have. Open. Shut.

The target date for them calling a referrendum is 2016.

I'm also entertained by the idea that there isn't an appetite for this in the south. My arse - 95% of people would go for it in the morning. There is a reason its the stated aim of all political parties in the Dail.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

You don't have the majority.

Probably not, but it is in the post.

The question is will the unionists practice what they have preached since the 20's and are signed up for in the GFA and allow the democratic will of the majority to prevail?

bmaxi

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There is some baffling naivity on this thread, largely from unionist posters.

The GFA is very clear. At any point there can be a refferendum on the status of the 6 counties, but this can only be called once a decade.

SF will presumably call it at some point when they think the demographics suit and if 50.1% vote for a UI, a UI is what we have. Open. Shut.

The target date for them calling a referrendum is 2016.

I'm also entertained by the idea that there isn't an appetite for this in the south. My arse - 95% of people would go for it in the morning. There is a reason its the stated aim of all political parties in the Dail.

I think you are confusing the issue. I'm pretty sure if there was consensus in the North, then yes, maybe 95% of the people would go for it but not at any cost.
As regards all the political parties being in favour, it's just another grandstanding issue.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The target date for them calling a referrendum is 2016.

I'm also entertained by the idea that there isn't an appetite for this in the south. My arse - 95% of people would go for it in the morning. There is a reason its the stated aim of all political parties in the Dail.

If unification means the Republic taking charge of security AND widespread armed unionist resistance, you'll quickly see how sharply that southern 'support' will dissipate.

The reason why Dáil parties have it as a stated political aim is because it costs them nothing - most, if not all, are aware that unification will not happen in their lifetime.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

If unification means the Republic taking charge of security AND widespread armed unionist resistance, you'll quickly see how sharply that southern 'support' will dissipate.

The reason why Dáil parties have it as a stated political aim is because it costs them nothing - most, if not all, are aware that unification will not happen in their lifetime.

I highly doubt voters in the 26 would vote against a UI. Some will sure, but not enough. I wont. Would you vote against it?

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I highly doubt voters in the 26 would vote against a UI. Some will sure, but not enough. I wont. Would you vote against it?

Under the correct circumstances I would vote in favour of it. I wouldn't do so at any cost though, and certainly wouldn't do so in the context of a renewed troubles - especially if it is the case the UVF take the role of the PIRA and start fighting the Irish army, not the British one. As if we have either the balls or the resources to fight that kind of fight.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

Under the correct circumstances I would vote in favour of it. I wouldn't do so at any cost though, and certainly wouldn't do so in the context of a renewed troubles - especially if it is the case the UVF take the role of the PIRA and start fighting the Irish army, not the British one. As if we have either the balls or the resources to fight that kind of fight.

So what would be the ideal circumstances then?

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So what would be the ideal circumstances then?

I haven't got all the answers. But I would aim for reunification when the question becomes a purely utilitarian issue (As unification makes economic and practical sense as it is) rather than an emotive, tribal one. That may take 50 years or 500, but I wouldn't want it if meant a renewed 'struggle' by anybody.

OS119

Denerick wrote: »

If unification means the Republic taking charge of security AND widespread armed unionist resistance, you'll quickly see how sharply that southern 'support' will dissipate.

that would be my view - 'want' is an awfully wide word, i'm quite sure a large majority of people in the RoI 'want' a benign, cheap, easy UI, but i'm pretty sure that if they were they offered one that involved bringing 250,000 violently opposed nordies into the state, filling the public spending hole in NI that the UK left, and having to double defence and Garda spending in order to keep a lid on said 250,000 very upset nordies they say 'sure, lets give it another 10 years...'

i want quite a few things that technically i have the ability to pay for, but i'm not prepared to make the sacrifice in other areas of my life that shelling out for them would entail.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

I haven't got all the answers. But I would aim for reunification when the question becomes a purely utilitarian issue (As unification makes economic and practical sense as it is) rather than an emotive, tribal one. That may take 50 years or 500, but I wouldn't want it if meant a renewed 'struggle' by anybody.

So even if the majority in the north voted to unify you would consider voting against it?