Yet another Thread on United Ireland - Irish Times Article-No trolling please

walrusgumble

So, the Irish Times has noted a recent poll by the Northern Ireland Life and Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0620/1224299225080.html?via=mr


It found, after a survey amongst a representative group of 1,205 adults
that just one in three Catholics (33 per cent) wants a united Ireland, while 52 per cent want the North to stay in the UK, with 46 per cent of Catholics happy with the devolved arrangements and 6 per cent favouring a return to direct rule from Westminster.


Now, the survey maybe not be credibile, but there can be no getting away from the fact that Catholics (not all were ever Nationalists/Republicans) the traditional Nationalists/Republicans (maybe by accident) do often feel alienated by us down South, in their treatment of them and attitudes towards them. Yes, some are miserable grumpy so and so (as we are too) but Northerns do sort of get treated with distain by people in the South who claim to be Republicans. You look at when Austin Currie & Mary McAleese running for the President, or Gerry Adams (different kettle of fish) running for office, terms akin to them being foreign got/get thrown around.

I do not want this thread to tramp on old grounds . ie the Troubles and the wrongs and rights of them. Ten years has moved on and attitudes to Reunion have substantially changed in Peace time.

So, what gives? THe economy stupid? Northern's Education System & Welfare State (or what is left of it)? Our crony loving politicans? The fear, on Northerns side, of loosing their now handy but hard fought positions in the Public Service of Northern Ireland?

I have been to a Sinn Fein talk once. (90th Anniversary) Aspirations and the "time is now" speeches of united Ireland are always thrown out. Yet one never gets the details as to how this can be remotely achieved. Surely, they still don't that it can be achieved by Catholics or the correct terms, Nationalists/Republicans, having more babies and reaching higher population than Unionists?

Discuss.

Most threads tend to be on are you in favour, yes or no. It then goes into whataboutery and rights and wrongs of the Troubles. People who are against a United Ireland, I think one post shown your disapproval no matter how great we are should suffice, unless withing to counter arguing someone else's point. It is aimed at those you are pro unity (not neccessarily now but in the future) and what should activiely be done in order to entice BOTH communities that the South is better. Arguments on the current economic climate are a cop out (in the sense of future aims - we had a good climate 10 years ago)

Please, no trolling and dragging the past. Everyone is aware of the past.

mike65

the thread I started went down the predictable route.

superfish

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPSizAcqeA

walrusgumble

mods, i did not realise that another post was open on this subject. I thought, natively, that this was was the first. My how people are quick off the ball.

I don't think that this post should be closed, for now. But if it is justified, so be it

walrusgumble

mike65 wrote: »

the thread I started went down the predictable route.

No wonder why none of them want to join our groovy group in the South:o

mike65

The tribalism is such that its hardly worth the candle discussing practical matters/reasons why unification might or might not happen.

PatsytheNazi

walrusgumble wrote: »

So, the Irish Times has noted a recent poll by the Northern Ireland Life and Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0620/1224299225080.html?via=mr


It found, after a survey amongst a representative group of 1,205 adults
that just one in three Catholics (33 per cent) wants a united Ireland, while 52 per cent want the North to stay in the UK, with 46 per cent of Catholics happy with the devolved arrangements and 6 per cent favouring a return to direct rule from Westminster.

Now, the survey maybe not be credibile,

The survey is indeed not credibile -

This is the same 'accurate' survey that puts 2010 political party support at - DUP 18%, SDLP 17%, UUP 16%, Sinn Fein 11%, Alliance 10%
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2010/Polit.../POLPART2.html

But how people actually voted in 2010 - DUP 24.96%, SDLP 16.47%, UUP 15.19%, SF 25.52

If you want an accurate reflection on political opinions in the north over the last 40 years, here it is -

1969 – Unionists 67.4% Nationalists 18.8%
2010 – Unionists 50.6% Nationalists 41.9%
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electsum.htm

Bottle_of_Smoke

You haven't a hope of the thread not going down the usual path.

The bottom line is:

Republican posters will very rarely admit to wrongs by any republican

Unionist posters will very rarely admit to wrongs by any unionist

Its like there's this bizarre unwritten rule to border discussions that admitting to any wrong by your "side" means you are condemning the whole movement. I'd say it even goes further, to acknowledge something good the "other" side did is effectively the same thing.

When people are cornered and cannot reasonably disagree they introduce a new method of argument, mentioning some usually-irrelevant background story or general hard-done by rhetoric so they don't have to admit they were wrong about the point at hand. Shifting the goalposts on a wide range of issus also very popular.

Selective quoting may also work wonders, not to mention quoting half a sentence, even if the part you snipped out explains everything properly.

Its pathetic, never a discussion - just an argument.

Amazotheamazing

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

The survey is indeed not credibile -

This is the same 'accurate' survey that puts 2010 political party support at - DUP 18%, SDLP 17%, UUP 16%, Sinn Fein 11%, Alliance 10%
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2010/Polit.../POLPART2.html

But how people actually voted in 2010 - DUP 24.96%, SDLP 16.47%, UUP 15.19%, SF 25.52

If you want an accurate reflection on political opinions in the north over the last 40 years, here it is -

1969 – Unionists 67.4% Nationalists 18.8%
2010 – Unionists 50.6% Nationalists 41.9%
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electsum.htm

You're mistaking SF having 25% support among those who bother to vote as them having 25% support among the entire electorate. If, say, 50% of the electorate voted, and SF got 25% of that, in real terms, 12.5% of the electorate would support SF. The interesting thing is who does those who don't bother to vote support? In general, it's a tacit support for the status quo, which is what the Irish Times poll reflects.

Now the electorate doesn't fully reflect the population but still, you're acting se though there was 100% turnout. It's more likely that committed Nationalists and committed Unionists both turned out in the high numbers and the ones who didn't bother to vote don't care that strongly eitherway.

Bottle_of_Smoke

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

The survey is indeed not credibile -

This is the same 'accurate' survey that puts 2010 political party support at - DUP 18%, SDLP 17%, UUP 16%, Sinn Fein 11%, Alliance 10%
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2010/Polit.../POLPART2.html

But how people actually voted in 2010 - DUP 24.96%, SDLP 16.47%, UUP 15.19%, SF 25.52

Easily explained. For the DUP discrepancy its probably UUP voters going with DUP to prevent a nationalist 1st minister, on top of general Tom Elliot being a complete buffoon with no charisma.

Sinn Fein may have got votes on the day due to such a poor SDLP leader/campaign.

If you want an accurate reflection on political opinions in the north over the last 40 years, here it is -

1969 – Unionists 67.4% Nationalists 18.8%
2010 – Unionists 50.6% Nationalists 41.9%
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electsum.htm

Your use of statistics is amusing here. The 67:18 vote is skewed because back then many nationalists did not vote. Also it completely fails to recognise that a vote for a nationalist party is not the same as a yes vote to a united Ireland.

Look at how much bigger the nationalist block got since 1982 when Sinn Fein started running in the elections:



Out of interest, and bearing in mind that nationalist party candidates only make up 42% of the state, what do you think would be an accurate figure for supporting Irish unity?

walrusgumble

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

The survey is indeed not credibile -

This is the same 'accurate' survey that puts 2010 political party support at - DUP 18%, SDLP 17%, UUP 16%, Sinn Fein 11%, Alliance 10%
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2010/Polit.../POLPART2.html

But how people actually voted in 2010 - DUP 24.96%, SDLP 16.47%, UUP 15.19%, SF 25.52

If you want an accurate reflection on political opinions in the north over the last 40 years, here it is -

1969 – Unionists 67.4% Nationalists 18.8%
2010 – Unionists 50.6% Nationalists 41.9%
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electsum.htm

I accept that it is not credible. No one every suggested that all Northern Catholics were even Nationalist/Republicans. Where did they get these people from? East Belfast?

Look, the discussion did note, however, that is it credible that some of our people may, if push came to shove, decide to stay where they are for now. Not just economically but also socially.

The sooner Republicans/Nationalist acknolwedge that the NAtionalist/Republican vote can not be taken for granted the better. There can't be any denying that people in the south, seem more hostile to our cousins in green than our cousins in orange. Why? What can be done to solve it?

walrusgumble

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You haven't a hope of the thread not going down the usual path.

The bottom line is:

Republican posters will very rarely admit to wrongs by any republican

Unionist posters will very rarely admit to wrongs by any unionist

Its like there's this bizarre unwritten rule to border discussions that admitting to any wrong by your "side" means you are condemning the whole movement. I'd say it even goes further, to acknowledge something good the "other" side did is effectively the same thing.

When people are cornered and cannot reasonably disagree they introduce a new method of argument, mentioning some usually-irrelevant background story or general hard-done by rhetoric so they don't have to admit they were wrong about the point at hand. Shifting the goalposts on a wide range of issus also very popular.

Selective quoting may also work wonders, not to mention quoting half a sentence, even if the part you snipped out explains everything properly.

Its pathetic, never a discussion - just an argument.

I can't disagree.

Funny, then, how Gerry becomes all partitionist, us and them attitude when talking southerners down. The movement, both North and South, will soon one day get a rude awaken, if they think all they need to do is wave a tricolour and shout "tiocfaidh ar la" that will get the crowd moving. Substance in policy is now whats wanted.

Anyone willing to discuss it anyway?

PatsytheNazi

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

You're mistaking SF having 25% support among those who bother to vote as them having 25% support among the entire electorate. If, say, 50% of the electorate voted, and SF got 25% of that, in real terms, 12.5% of the electorate would support SF. The interesting thing is who does those who don't bother to vote support? In general, it's a tacit support for the status quo, which is what the Irish Times poll reflects.

Now the electorate doesn't fully reflect the population but still, you're acting se though there was 100% turnout. It's more likely that committed Nationalists and committed Unionists both turned out in the high numbers and the ones who didn't bother to vote don't care that strongly eitherway.

Yeah and of course your mistaking the DUP having 25% support among those who bother to vote blah, blah, blah :rolleyes: If my Aunty had you know what she'd be me uncle :rolleyes:

PatsytheNazi

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Easily explained. For the DUP discrepancy its probably UUP voters going with DUP to prevent a nationalist 1st minister, on top of general Tom Elliot being a complete buffoon with no charisma.

Sinn Fein may have got votes on the day due to such a poor SDLP leader/campaign.


Your use of statistics is amusing here. The 67:18 vote is skewed because back then many nationalists did not vote. Also it completely fails to recognise that a vote for a nationalist party is not the same as a yes vote to a united Ireland.

Look at how much bigger the nationalist block got since 1982 when Sinn Fein started running in the elections:



Out of interest, and bearing in mind that nationalist party candidates only make up 42% of the state, what do you think would be an accurate figure for supporting Irish unity?

" For the DUP discrepancy its probably UUP voters.....Sinn Fein may have got votes on the day " - Stop clutching at straws

Out of interest, and bearing in mind that unionist party candidates only make up 50% of the state as against the ever increasing number of nationalist voters, what do you think would be an accurate figure for supporting unity with Britian in say, 10 or 20 years ??

Wolfe Tone

Out of interest, and bearing in mind that nationalist party candidates only make up 42% of the state, what do you think would be an accurate figure for supporting Irish unity?

In and around 35% imo.

From this poll it really looks like they did not get a proper cross section of society.

PatsytheNazi

walrusgumble wrote: »

I accept that it is not credible. No one every suggested that all Northern Catholics were even Nationalist/Republicans. Where did they get these people from? East Belfast?

About the only thing sensible you've stated on the thread so far !!!!!

Look, the discussion did note, however, that is it credible that some of our people may, if push came to shove, decide to stay where they are for now. Not just economically but also socially.

The sooner Republicans/Nationalist acknolwedge that the NAtionalist/Republican vote can not be taken for granted the better. There can't be any denying that people in the south, seem more hostile to our cousins in green than our cousins in orange. Why? What can be done to solve it?

Is Paisley or Sir David Trimble standing for the President down here or something ? Do you think they'll do well ?

Bottle_of_Smoke

walrusgumble wrote: »

I can't disagree.

Funny, then, how Gerry becomes all partitionist, us and them attitude when talking southerners down. The movement, both North and South, will soon one day get a rude awaken, if they think all they need to do is wave a tricolour and shout "tiocfaidh ar la" that will get the crowd moving. Substance in policy is now whats wanted.

Anyone willing to discuss it anyway?

So, what gives? THe economy stupid? Northern's Education System & Welfare State (or what is left of it)? Our crony loving politicans? The fear, on Northerns side, of loosing their now handy but hard fought positions in the Public Service of Northern Ireland?

Ok well I think the whole "Catholics aren't bothered with unification" is multifactorial:

General Apathy:
A lot of peopel actually aren't political and don't care about politics. These peopel are useful to unionists at present because unionism wants things to stay the same, whereas nationalists plan is for change, and therefore, the unknown.

Lack of Oppression:
Just as easy for a Catholic to get a job/promotion etc these days. The denial of these rights in the past may have led catholics to want a united Ireland so they could be normal citizens.

Greenifying of Northern Ireland:Nowadays catholics can be considered Irish legally as they are now entitled to an Irish passport and Irish citizenship is recognised as a birthright. Also there's no ban on the irish tri-colour(actually maybe there is but its mostly not enforced)
GAA celebrated all over the place, Irish dancing/music/languge etc popular. (irish language act on the horizon)

All these things make it possible for people of gaelic heritage to feel Irish, therefore not caring as much about actual sovereignty.

Cross-border bodies:
Although intended to bring the island together I think they may contribute to people thinking "ah sure we already are one island, is there any point in fixing the system when its not broken?"

Republicanism is in terrible shape:
There's Sinn Fein supporters, SDLP supporters, Eirigi supporters, then a load more most haven't heard of, Republican Sinn Fein, RNU, IRSP....

Some of the small parties have solidarity, but the big ones hate each other. All the disunity means a lot of people just cannot be holed.

Even the biggest guys Sinn Fein aren't consistant, their plan for unification requires hundreds of thousands of current unionist voters to switch allegiences, yet they constantly do things which really piss unionists off

Wolfe Tone

It a shame that the survey didn't have a simple yes or no question on reunification.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It a shame that the survey didn't have a simple yes or no question on reunification.

Absolutely, devolution within the UK is really only a minor detail when it comes to a question of sovereignty. I mean why aren't they offering devolution within a unified Ireland if they insist on keeping it there?

Perhaps the unification vs devolution vs direct rule was relevant before Sinn Fein entered Stormont, but nowadays its distracting, and I would say is causing people to go with devolution when answering the survey.

Not hugely, but I personally would have expected 30% to be in favour not 16%

PatsytheNazi

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Ok well I think the whole "Catholics aren't bothered with unification" is multifactorial:

General Apathy:
A lot of peopel actually aren't political and don't care about politics. These peopel are useful to unionists at present because unionism wants things to stay the same, whereas nationalists plan is for change, and therefore, the unknown.

Isn't change the reason we elect politicans ! You seem to thing ' wee Protestant Ulster ' is some sort of Utopia. Ill tell you what General Apathy is - when the Scots are clearly moving away from the UK !

Lack of Oppression:
Just as easy for a Catholic to get a job/promotion etc these days. The denial of these rights in the past may have led catholics to want a united Ireland so they could be normal citizens.

Yes, and doesn' it say it all about the real confidence of unionism that it's now pinning it's hopes on the very people it didn't want about the place.

Greenifying of Northern Ireland:Nowadays catholics can be considered Irish legally as they are now entitled to an Irish passport and Irish citizenship is recognised as a birthright. Also there's no ban on the irish tri-colour(actually maybe there is but its mostly not enforced)
GAA celebrated all over the place, Irish dancing/music/languge etc popular. (irish language act on the horizon)

All these things make it possible for people of gaelic heritage to feel Irish, therefore not caring as much about actual sovereignty.

Yes indeed your right there and stop kidding yourself if you think it's not going to continue. I think we need more like Tom Elliot who describe SF voters as scum.

Cross-border bodies:
Although intended to bring the island together I think they may contribute to people thinking "ah sure we already are one island, is there any point in fixing the system when its not broken?"

Gladstone tried to defeat Home Rule by kindness - look how that worked out !!!

Republicanism is in terrible shape:
There's Sinn Fein supporters, SDLP supporters, Eirigi supporters, then a load more most haven't heard of, Republican Sinn Fein, RNU, IRSP....

Some of the small parties have solidarity, but the big ones hate each other. All the disunity means a lot of people just cannot be holed.

Even the biggest guys Sinn Fein aren't consistant, their plan for unification requires hundreds of thousands of current unionist voters to switch allegiences, yet they constantly do things which really piss unionists off

Eirigi, RSF etc barely make a dent in SF. If it was in such bad shape, why is SF the 2nd or 3rd largest party on an All Ireland basis ?

And of course unionism was never so strong, DUP, UUP, TUV, etc. Even the Brit National Party are getting in on the act !

Bottle_of_Smoke

First off Patsy, this thread was set up to avoid the usual pitfalls. Your tone is antagonistic, and its not helpful to a decent discussion. For all my responses I am going to do so as impartially as possible, try to envision us having a discussion, and not a debate. I hope you respond in kind

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Isn't change the reason we elect politicans ! You seem to thing ' wee Protestant Ulster ' is some sort of Utopia. Ill tell you what General Apathy is - when the Scots are clearly moving away from the UK !

No we elect politicians to make laws and run the country. The rest of that, I do not understand how you have come to the postion that I think NI is a utopia, but be assured I do not think of it as one, nor would I ever call it "Protestant Ulster"

Yes, and doesn' it say it all about the real confidence of unionism that it's now pinning it's hopes on the very people it didn't want about the place.

Not particularly, as there are enough Protestants in favour of the union to outnumber all catholics. Anyway I was discussing why Catholics aren't as in favour of unification, nothing directly to do with unionism so to speak.

Yes indeed your right there and stop kidding yourself if you think it's not going to continue. I think we need more like Tom Elliot who describe SF voters as scum.

Well this is what I am talking about. Why do you think I think its not going to continue? What assumptions are you making? Why be so argumentative when you agree with me?

Gladstone tried to defeat Home Rule by kindness - look how that worked out !!!

Bit off topic but lets not forget home rule never happened on a 32 county basis

Eirigi, RSF etc barely make a dent in SF. If it was in such bad shape, why is SF the 2nd or 3rd largest party on an All Ireland basis ?

SF do well because they don't have much competition amongst nationalists in the NI jurisdiction. Also wouldn't FG/FF/Lab all be bigger? And DUP have more MPs as well as assembly seats?

And of course unionism was never so strong, DUP, UUP, TUV, etc. Even the Brit National Party are getting in on the act !

Again, a thread about catholics not wanting a UI. Unionisim is not the Yan of Republican Yin

Exile 1798

walrusgumble wrote: »

Now, the survey maybe not be credibile, but there can be no getting away from the fact that Catholics (not all were ever Nationalists/Republicans) the traditional Nationalists/Republicans (maybe by accident) do often feel alienated by us down South, in their treatment of them and attitudes towards them. Yes, some are miserable grumpy so and so (as we are too) but Northerns do sort of get treated with distain by people in the South who claim to be Republicans. You look at when Austin Currie & Mary McAleese running for the President, or Gerry Adams (different kettle of fish) running for office, terms akin to them being foreign got/get thrown around.

Well McAleese is twice elected and seems to be generally liked.

I think you have to take into account that people referring to her as "foreign" are almost always taking the mick. The same goes for such comments about Northern Nationalists in general.

As popular as German unification was, it spurned much contrarian posing from a certain segment of Germans. "I miss the wall" on tshirts ect. It's considered the hight of coolness in certain minds to buck a commonly held view. But German progress marched on unaffected by the posing of the cool kids.

It’s the same in Ireland. Obviously some people's views are genuine, however others just get an cheap kick out of poking the idea of unification in the eye. Happily history is not made by piss takers but by policy makers.

PatsytheNazi

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

First off Patsy, this thread was set up to avoid the usual pitfalls. Your tone is antagonistic, and its not helpful to a decent discussion. For all my responses I am going to do so as impartially as possible, try to envision us having a discussion, and not a debate. I hope you respond in kind



No we elect politicians to make laws and run the country. The rest of that, I do not understand how you have come to the postion that I think NI is a utopia, but be assured I do not think of it as one, nor would I ever call it "Protestant Ulster"




Not particularly, as there are enough Protestants in favour of the union to outnumber all catholics. Anyway I was discussing why Catholics aren't as in favour of unification, nothing directly to do with unionism so to speak.



Well this is what I am talking about. Why do you think I think its not going to continue? What assumptions are you making? Why be so argumentative when you agree with me?



Bit off topic but lets not forget home rule never happened on a 32 county basis



SF do well because they don't have much competition amongst nationalists in the NI jurisdiction. Also wouldn't FG/FF/Lab all be bigger? And DUP have more MPs as well as assembly seats?



Again, a thread about catholics not wanting a UI. Unionisim is not the Yan of Republican Yin

Sorry, but don't lecture me on how I should reply to your posts. Aren't you very kind to yourself in describing " For all my responses I am going to do so as impartially as possible " and yet all this ' impartiallity ' is based on the unionist assumption and insistence that the voting patterns of the last 40 years are not true indicators of how nationalists vote !!!!

I or any nationalist could go on all day saying the same about unionism and it's ' loyalty ' to Britain. It's been unionism down the years that has mouthed about an ' independent Ulster or Northen Ireland ' - not nationalists. So, don't try ramming down your unionist assumptions trying to make out that their somehow like a law of physics or something.

Wolfe Tone

BoS would be republican minded I think Patsy, he ain't a unionist anyway.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Trying my best here Patsy. In that post you quoted there could you highlight one "unionist assumption" I have made?

Chucky the tree

Has there been a survey on this in the South recently at all? Given our current economic situation it would be interesting to see how that would be. Personnally I'd vote no on unionfication if there was a referendum on it.

PatsytheNazi

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Trying my best here Patsy. In that post you quoted there could you highlight one "unionist assumption" I have made?

It's in post #23 already.

Bottle_of_Smoke

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

It's in post #23 already.

do you mean this?

Sorry, but don't lecture me on how I should reply to your posts. Aren't you very kind to yourself in describing " For all my responses I am going to do so as impartially as possible " and yet all this ' impartiallity ' is based on the unionist assumption and insistence that the voting patterns of the last 40 years are not true indicators of how nationalists vote !!!!

If so, well this is how I genuinely interpreted your point:

You said

If you want an accurate reflection on political opinions in the north over the last 40 years, here it is -

With this post you linked a table showing nationalist and unionist politician ratios since 1969

In the context I interpreted this as being your example showing people who would vote yes is approx 40%, and also that nationalism is steadily rising since 1969

I then pointed out that back then many nationalists(should have said republicans or nationalists) didn't vote, and posted a graph showing the increase in the nationalist bloc when Sinn Fein entered the elections, presumably encouraging their supporters to vote rather than boycott.

That is not an assumption, it is pointing out the circumstances have changed since 1969, so the increase in nationalist seats isn't as significant as that graph suggest.

djpbarry

walrusgumble wrote: »

Now, the survey maybe not be credibile...

Why not? What is it about the methodology that undermines the results?

InigoMontoya

walrusgumble wrote: »

The sooner Republicans/Nationalist acknolwedge that the NAtionalist/Republican vote can not be taken for granted the better. There can't be any denying that people in the south, seem more hostile to our cousins in green than our cousins in orange. Why? What can be done to solve it?

Would like to see your rationale for that?

PatsytheNazi

InigoMontoya wrote: »

Would like to see your rationale for that?

Walrusgrumble is a FGer and he's probably in shell shock since Sir Garret FitzThatcher died.

PatsytheNazi

djpbarry wrote: »

Why not? What is it about the methodology that undermines the results?

This is the same 'accurate' survey that puts 2010 political party support at - DUP 18%, SDLP 17%, UUP 16%, Sinn Fein 11%, Alliance 10%
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2010/Polit.../POLPART2.html

But how people actually voted in 2010 - DUP 24.96%, SDLP 16.47%, UUP 15.19%, SF 25.52


At times it's self contradictory -

Which of these best describes the way you think of yourself?
British 26
Irish 38
Ulster 2
Northern Irish 29
Other 3
Don’t know 1
Missing 1
http://www.ark.ac.uk/ylt/2010/Identity/NINATID.html

InigoMontoya

FitzThatcher? That's very good. Excuse me while I roll around in mirth.

djpbarry

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

This is the same 'accurate' survey that puts 2010 political party support at - DUP 18%, SDLP 17%, UUP 16%, Sinn Fein 11%, Alliance 10%

Yeah, yeah, that’s already been addressed. But what is it about the methodology that renders the results meaningless?

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

At times it's self contradictory -

How so?

Amazotheamazing

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Yeah and of course your mistaking the DUP having 25% support among those who bother to vote blah, blah, blah :rolleyes: If my Aunty had you know what she'd be me uncle :rolleyes:

I didn't mention the DUP?

You can disagree with the poll all you like, what you can't do is invent facts or ignore voter turnout. I'm not overly bothered what the hardcore of either side want, I'd like to know what the ones in between are thinking.

PatsytheNazi

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I didn't mention the DUP?

You can disagree with the poll all you like, what you can't do is invent facts or ignore voter turnout. I'm not overly bothered what the hardcore of either side want, I'd like to know what the ones in between are thinking.

No you didn't, all you did was come up with a load of balooney " if " 25% of this for SF, and " if " 50% of that for SF blah, blah.

Likewise we could also do the " if " bit for the DUP :rolleyes:

Amazotheamazing

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

No you didn't, all you did was come up with a load of balooney " if " 25% of this for SF, and " if " 50% of that for SF blah, blah.

Likewise we could also do the " if " bit for the DUP :rolleyes:

Do you understand what voter turnout is?

PatsytheNazi

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Do you understand what voter turnout is?

Obviously you don't, " if " and actual voter turn out are two very different things.

Amazotheamazing

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Obviously you don't, " if " and actual voter turn out are two very different things.

I do but how can you base your figures around a low voter turnout?

KeithAFC

People can discuss it all they want but the truth the constitutional question has been answered and will be like that for many years to come. Call for a referendum, but it won’t happen. Sinn Fein will only embarrass themselves and most likely do the party some damage.

Going by that survey and It was the most interesting thing about it, more Catholics want to stay within the Union than Protestants want to join the Irish Republic.

anymore

KeithAFC wrote: »

People can discuss it all they want but the truth the constitutional question has been answered and will be like that for many years to come. Call for a referendum, but it won’t happen. Sinn Fein will only embarrass themselves and most likely do the party some damage.

Going by that survey and It was the most interesting thing about it, more Catholics want to stay within the Union than Protestants want to join the Irish Republic.

Lets be honest, more people are probably saying that moneywise, I am probably better off where I am at the moment - as Haughey siad NI is a failed political state - what is holding it together is english money !

mgmt

anymore wrote: »

Lets be honest, more people are probably saying that moneywise, I am probably better off where I am at the moment - as Haughey siad NI is a failed political state - what is holding it together is english money !

Ireland is a failed state and is being held together in part by English money too!

We'll see better statistics with the census results. Should be interesting.

anymore

mgmt wrote: »

Ireland is a failed state and is being held together in part by English money too!

We'll see better statistics with the census results. Should be interesting.

On the contrary, until recent years Ireland was most manifestly not a failed state - it was quite the opposite of NI. We will also sooner or later emerge from this situation intact.

PatsytheNazi

KeithAFC wrote: »

People can discuss it all they want but the truth the constitutional question has been answered and will be like that for many years to come. Call for a referendum, but it won’t happen. Sinn Fein will only embarrass themselves and most likely do the party some damage.

Going by that survey and It was the most interesting thing about it, more Catholics want to stay within the Union than Protestants want to join the Irish Republic.

This is the same 'accurate' survey that puts 2010 political party support at - DUP 18%, SDLP 17%, UUP 16%, Sinn Fein 11%, Alliance 10%
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2010/Polit.../POLPART2.html
But how people actually voted in 2010 - DUP 24.96%, SDLP 16.47%, UUP 15.19%, SF 25.52

We're not the ones claiming a survey is a more accurate indicator than elections over the last 4 decades !!!!!

1969 – Unionists 67.4% Nationalists 18.8%
2010 – Unionists 50.6% Nationalists 41.9%

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electsum.htm

tick ,tock, tick, tock

PatsytheNazi

mgmt wrote: »

Ireland is a failed state and is being held together in part by English money too!

We'll see better statistics with the census results. Should be interesting.

Of course that utopia England was a failed state 25 years before Ireland when they had to call the IMF in to bail them out in the mid 70's !

anymore wrote: »

On the contrary, until recent years Ireland was most manifestly not a failed state - it was quite the opposite of NI. We will also sooner or later emerge from this situation intact.

Interesting post. Pre 2007, the ' experts ' around the world were calling us the Celtic Tiger ( a phrase that developed in the City of London no less ! )

The thing is, like everyone else I too have been affected by the collapse. But I often question, did things have to get so bad for people to wake up to the criminals and Gombeen men of Fianna Fail who have dominated southern politics for 70 years ? If it did, then some good will come out of this and the country will be the better for it.

djpbarry

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

This is the same 'accurate' survey that puts 2010 political party support at - DUP 18%, SDLP 17%, UUP 16%, Sinn Fein 11%, Alliance 10%

You still have not highlighted the problem (as you perceive it) with the survey's methodology.

PatsytheNazi

djpbarry wrote: »

You still have not highlighted the problem (as you perceive it) with the survey's methodology.

If you cann't see the obvious discrepency between the poll and the actual election results - then I'm not arsed to spoon fed you.

walrusgumble

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

About the only thing sensible you've stated on the thread so far !!!!!


Is Paisley or Sir David Trimble standing for the President down here or something ? Do you think they'll do well ?

Patsy, take your rose tinted glasses off. This is not a Sinn Fein Bashing Thread. So do not get defensive. There are salient problems which I have raised. A flash through the archives of this website show the bigotted or me féin or self interested atittudes that have been expressed on the North. You ever heard what people like McAleese every said about what it was like when she first came South?

It is agreed that it is not a credibile survey so all you amateur staticians can give it a rest, you are completely missing the point, and showing that groups like Republicans are all no subsistance and no meat. You are ignoring the salient issues that people (too many media loudmouths, even if they are a minority) in the North and South don't really like each other. Yes there was always serious discrimination of catholics and those of the nationalist/republican ethos in the past. yes that can't all be swept under the carpet. but you are delluding yourself into thinking that they were, as of birth docitarian wolfe tonians -the circumstances, for many of what happened to them and their people drove them to what they did. that would be revionism, something PSF do a great job of doing.

You saw the reaction of Southerners reacted about cross boarder shopping, after the increase of VAT. Despite bringing much business and tourist to the North, which can only be a great thing, we had people in Dáil Éireann and the experts in business who spent a decade ripping Irish people off, telling us, that it was our patrotic duty to shop in the South (even though most of our shops etc have non Irish owners). Rather odd isn't it considering we aspire to be a united ireland and we had Martin McGuinness then coming on, rightly, showing his discuss with this attitude.

You have heard comment been made against Austin Currie , even by his own new party FG, McAleese and Adams referring to their so called "British" Nationality, by people down here.

We had a party in Fianna Fáil who boasted its Republican creditidentials yet did feck all in supporting Northern Counties and assist them in trade etc with counties of the 6, despite being their natural inhinterland. Policies have been made without any consideration to their effect to the boarder counties. You ask someone from Moville, Letterkenny, Pettigo etc who do they feel more closer too, Dublin or Derry/Enniskillen, lets see what the answer is. And it is not for a lack of representation in the government either.

Fine Gael in the mid 1990's under John Bruton was more focused on sharing the hand of friendship to the Unionists (and getting it bitten off), so too did Michael McDowell of the PD's, yet completely refused to talk to ALL members of the Green side of Northern Ireland. Our media, ie Sunday Times (Irish Citizen writers) were always more keen to bash Republicans and be less vocal on the actions of the other side.

Even Sinn Fein Supporters got a bit nose out of joint over Northern Party workers coming into their turf in 2007 elections. Mary Lou will only get the leadership of Sinn Fein via Northerners will while most in the South want Doherty. The Northerner's will will prevail (I have no qualms with Mary Lou btw, i think she is capable) there maybe some resentment among the other Southern TD's.

I never said, people don't want an united Ireland. Sinn Féin are the only credible party in the South that is still actively pushing for it. That is a reality. They have yet to bring out the big plan. (we are all aware of the other ideas, which were or have now been shot down- excuse the pun) Listen to Republican barstoolers (you know the sort) would even make Adams cringe, but at least he can control them as oppose to others who might have been of the old workers sinn fein party attitude.

If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore the problems by all means. It would be worth to hear your 2 cent as to why most of what I have said is nonsense.

As for Trimble and Paisley? No they would get hampererd. And I doubt those two would ever run, it would kind of sell out everything they stood for. The only party who might have considered Trimble as a candidate might have been old FG, as a sop to the Unionists and Dublin 4 faternity. Paisley has blood on his hands. What was your point? Norris, supporter of Commonwealth, is here ain't he, lol

PatsytheNazi

walrusgumble wrote: »

Patsy, take your rose tinted glasses off. This is not a Sinn Fein Bashing Thread. So do not get defensive. There are salient problems which I have raised. A flash through the archives of this website show the bigotted or me féin or self interested atittudes that have been expressed on the North. You ever heard what people like McAleese every said about what it was like when she first came South?

It is agreed that it is not a credibile survey so all you amateur staticians can give it a rest, you are completely missing the point, and showing that groups like Republicans are all no subsistance and no meat. You are ignoring the salient issues that people (too many media loudmouths, even if they are a minority) in the North and South don't really like each other. Yes there was always serious discrimination of catholics and those of the nationalist/republican ethos in the past. yes that can't all be swept under the carpet. but you are delluding yourself into thinking that they were, as of birth docitarian wolfe tonians -the circumstances, for many of what happened to them and their people drove them to what they did. that would be revionism, something PSF do a great job of doing.

You saw the reaction of Southerners reacted about cross boarder shopping, after the increase of VAT. Despite bringing much business and tourist to the North, which can only be a great thing, we had people in Dáil Éireann and the experts in business who spent a decade ripping Irish people off, telling us, that it was our patrotic duty to shop in the South (even though most of our shops etc have non Irish owners). Rather odd isn't it considering we aspire to be a united ireland and we had Martin McGuinness then coming on, rightly, showing his discuss with this attitude.

You have heard comment been made against Austin Currie , even by his own new party FG, McAleese and Adams referring to their so called "British" Nationality, by people down here.

We had a party in Fianna Fáil who boasted its Republican creditidentials yet did feck all in supporting Northern Counties and assist them in trade etc with counties of the 6, despite being their natural inhinterland. Policies have been made without any consideration to their effect to the boarder counties. You ask someone from Moville, Letterkenny, Pettigo etc who do they feel more closer too, Dublin or Derry/Enniskillen, lets see what the answer is. And it is not for a lack of representation in the government either.

Fine Gael in the mid 1990's under John Bruton was more focused on sharing the hand of friendship to the Unionists (and getting it bitten off), so too did Michael McDowell of the PD's, yet completely refused to talk to ALL members of the Green side of Northern Ireland. Our media, ie Sunday Times (Irish Citizen writers) were always more keen to bash Republicans and be less vocal on the actions of the other side.

Even Sinn Fein Supporters got a bit nose out of joint over Northern Party workers coming into their turf in 2007 elections. Mary Lou will only get the leadership of Sinn Fein via Northerners will while most in the South want Doherty. The Northerner's will will prevail (I have no qualms with Mary Lou btw, i think she is capable) there maybe some resentment among the other Southern TD's.

I never said, people don't want an united Ireland. Sinn Féin are the only credible party in the South that is still actively pushing for it. That is a reality. They have yet to bring out the big plan. (we are all aware of the other ideas, which were or have now been shot down- excuse the pun) Listen to Republican barstoolers (you know the sort) would even make Adams cringe, but at least he can control them as oppose to others who might have been of the old workers sinn fein party attitude.

If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore the problems by all means. It would be worth to hear your 2 cent as to why most of what I have said is nonsense.

As for Trimble and Paisley? No they would get hampererd. And I doubt those two would ever run, it would kind of sell out everything they stood for. The only party who might have considered Trimble as a candidate might have been old FG, as a sop to the Unionists and Dublin 4 faternity. Paisley has blood on his hands. What was your point? Norris, supporter of Commonwealth, is here ain't he, lol

Well civil enough points been made there Walrus, cannot go thru them all. One I would though was Austin Currie, sure Currie was reffered to as a unionist in the north by SFers and indeed in private by SDLPers without ever coming south !!!

As for PC correctness down here and the unionsits, McDowell would be reffered to as a Brit **** by most working class people in his constituency ( I know, I lived in Ratmines), then you had the John 'unionist' Bruton jibe, Sir Garret FitzThatcher etc. FG and Sunday Independent PCness to the unionists and Britain is one, Joe public is another. Well my experience anyway.

walrusgumble

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Well McAleese is twice elected and seems to be generally liked.

I think you have to take into account that people referring to her as "foreign" are almost always taking the mick. The same goes for such comments about Northern Nationalists in general.

As popular as German unification was, it spurned much contrarian posing from a certain segment of Germans. "I miss the wall" on tshirts ect. It's considered the hight of coolness in certain minds to buck a commonly held view. But German progress marched on unaffected by the posing of the cool kids.

It’s the same in Ireland. Obviously some people's views are genuine, however others just get an cheap kick out of poking the idea of unification in the eye. Happily history is not made by piss takers but by policy makers.

Sorry for being fussy on the facts, but McAleese was only elected to one term. Though because she was mostly likely to win another term, she got elected without a challenge (which says alot for her and how she is liked). You check up her time in RTE, one of the Independent girls, Justine McCarthy did a book on her (a bit of a rant against her in parts) and see what McAleese had to say for herself during her first time here (obviously the troubles had people in the South non the wiser, and suspicious of all northerners)

Taking the mick or not, it should not be happening. It was far more sinster when Currie got it from boghole back bencher country pump bumpkins in Fine Gael. It aint like it was the Oirish coming over from America. Some senstive souls did not see the joke.

I do see and agree with your point though

PatsytheNazi

walrusgumble wrote: »

Sorry for being fussy on the facts, but McAleese was only elected to one term. Though because she was mostly likely to win another term, she got elected without a challenge (which says alot for her and how she is liked). You check up her time in RTE, one of the Independent girls, Justine McCarthy did a book on her (a bit of a rant against her in parts) and see what McAleese had to say for herself during her first time here (obviously the troubles had people in the South non the wiser, and suspicious of all northerners)

Taking the mick or not, it should not be happening. It was far more sinster when Currie got it from boghole back bencher country pump bumpkins in Fine Gael. It aint like it was the Oirish coming over from America. Some senstive souls did not see the joke.

I do see and agree with your point though

McAleese won the Presidental election with the biggest majority ever, even bigger than Dev's Much of it thanks to Bruton and statements about " tribal timebombs " etc