How to cure the north

Denerick

Northern Ireland is a strange place, it has some of the most deliciously black humour on the planet and if you like that sort of thing you'll have a great night out in Belfast or Derry (Watch out for the random assaults and undercurrent of sectarianism though) Its economy however is anaemic, far too reliant on a public sector that is going to suffer massive cuts over the coming years. Ironically its best economic future lies with the low tax republic to its south rather than with the creaking giant that is the UK, but thats by the by.

This is not an exclusively economic debate of course, as no-one can think of the North without thinking of the peacewalls and the quasi human orc like creatures on both sides of the divide who seem to have the curious notion that continuously shooting people and blowing up bombs will bring some kind of salvation. But realistically if these scamps had proper jobs, reasonable life expectations and genuine relationships across divides they wouldn't resort to terrorism and petty crookery. People say 'United Ireland' or 'Defend the Union' but what they really mean is 'I am incredibly bored'. Beyond their hate filled eyes lie future possibilities uninfluenced by such pathetic distractions. If they had less time on their hands and more independant means that didn't rely on illegal activites I'm sure most of the social problems there would pretty much cease.

So what is to be done? What can be done? Is there any cure for the north or is destined to remain a snarky and resentful backwater?

laoch na mona

send all our scumbags north the nationalists will have the majority then there is a democratic mandate for a united ireland give unionists houses in england
win win

steelcityblues

Your post OP, especially the second paragraph, sounds quite contemptuous of the place and northern people in general. Pretty much stereotypical general speak that could be gathered from the pages of any edition of the Sindo. Not as if layabouts don't exist down here.

The economy is actually still growing in the North - albeit less these days - and they at least don't have the ECB around their necks in economic affairs.

Southern governments are pretty much the last people around who should be advising Stormont govt.

KeithAFC

People say 'United Ireland' or 'Defend the Union' but what they really mean is 'I am incredibly bored'.

How do you come to that conclusion? My support for the Union and being a Loyalist isn't down to boredom as you put it. It is to keep our country and to hold what is dear to us.

If we lose our country, we lose everything.

im invisible

KeithAFC wrote: »

It is to keep our country and to hold what is dear to us.

If we lose our country, we lose everything.

thats what she said....

*she being Ireland

steddyeddy

I really really cant emphasize this enough but for the sake of preventing some of the backward attitudes in the north get rid of seperate schools for catholics and protestents.

Chuck Stone

Denerick wrote: »

Is there any cure for the north or is destined to remain a snarky and resentful backwater?

Judging by the snarky and resentful tone in your OP you think you'd thrive there.

After Hours >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

amacachi

steddyeddy wrote: »

I really really cant emphasize this enough but for the sake of preventing some of the backward attitudes in the north get rid of seperate schools for catholics and protestents.

Too right, be a while til that happens though.

aquascrotum

Few points / opinions....

I'd wholly agree with the sentiment of ending segregated education - but (unusually for this board) this isn't a mechanism put in place by the big bad Brits. There are state schools that are open to everyone, and there are Catholic maintained schools. Catholic parents choose to send their kids to CCMS schools (leaving state schools to be mostly protestant or a.n. other). Also, in my experience a fair number of deliberately titled "Integrated" schools have majority protestant enrolments. IMO that's quite similar to the Alliance Party effect in NI - moderate unionists / protestants are happy to vote the cross community option / sent the kids to the cross community school, but if no catholics do the same then it's not very cross community - so what's the point?

Economically the south isn't going to have the financial muscle to either prop up the existing public sector reliance, or reform the public sector and create a private sector, for a long time. So in the absence of a better alternative I'm much happier to throw my lot in with the slightly basket-case UK economy than the EU IMF hamstrung Irish economy.

I would agree that a lot of the "deprived" areas are happy to remain "deprived" - or at least that there is a culture of acceptance that that's their lot - and there are definitely quite a few in there who relish in the annual excuse for a good riot, to be immediately blamed on social deprivation. No idea how you beat that tbh.

It's depressing that the first proper troubles-free generation in their formative teen / post teen years are making their entrance into a crushed economy with limited opportunity. IMO it just means that the boredom effect kicks in - hence the spurt in young support for radical dissident republicanism and mirrored effect on the PUL side.

irishh_bob

laoch na mona wrote: »

send all our scumbags north the nationalists will have the majority then there is a democratic mandate for a united ireland give unionists houses in england
win win

you mean scotland , the unionists are scottish , beit in terms of where their ancestors originated from or thier personality , they are scottish

steddyeddy

aquascrotum wrote: »

Few points / opinions....

I'd wholly agree with the sentiment of ending segregated education - but (unusually for this board) this isn't a mechanism put in place by the big bad Brits. There are state schools that are open to everyone, and there are Catholic maintained schools. Catholic parents choose to send their kids to CCMS schools (leaving state schools to be mostly protestant or a.n. other). Also, in my experience a fair number of deliberately titled "Integrated" schools have majority protestant enrolments. IMO that's quite similar to the Alliance Party effect in NI - moderate unionists / protestants are happy to vote the cross community option / sent the kids to the cross community school, but if no catholics do the same then it's not very cross community - so what's the point?

Well first of all I would ban all caholic schools outright and however few protestent schools there are should go too. The second point is wheter or not state schools would be a hostile envoirment for catholics. Seeing catholic kids being pelted with stones on the way to a catholic school and seeing people with K.A.T printed on their knuckles (kill all taigs) would lead me to believe that catholics would be welcome in all state schools. So its naive to assume that just because rules do not disqaulify a catholic entry into a school that their entry would be welcome or in many cases safe.

Its not a matter of catholics "joining in" historically in the north and currently there has been huge bigotry towards catholics and indeed on a smaller level (smaller in terms of population) there has been bigotry against protestents.

My solution to this would be a gradual introduction of special cross commnity schools which required a qoauta from each community. An excellent anti sectarian charity in glasgow called nil by mouth have done great work fighting against bigotry and they used give tips to northern ireland schools on how to help integration. If any parent has a problem with this thats their problem but bigotry should not be pushed onto kids.

omen80

laoch na mona wrote: »

send all our scumbags north the nationalists will have the majority then there is a democratic mandate for a united ireland give unionists houses in england
win win

Seriously are you 9 years old? Do you know what a full stop is?
And your point is completely ridiculous (that is if I read it right!).

aquascrotum

laoch na mona wrote: »

send all our scumbags north the nationalists will have the majority then there is a democratic mandate for a united ireland give unionists houses in england
win win

:pac:

Missed this the first time round!

With you being a fully signed up SFer (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056378479) - is this your vision for "building an Ireland of equals"...ship them off to England!? :rolleyes:

aquascrotum

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well first of all I would ban all caholic schools outright and however few protestent schools there are should go too. The second point is wheter or not state schools would be a hostile envoirment for catholics. Seeing catholic kids being pelted with stones on the way to a catholic school and seeing people with K.A.T printed on their knuckles (kill all taigs) would lead me to believe that catholics would be welcome in all state schools. So its naive to assume that just because rules do not disqaulify a catholic entry into a school that their entry would be welcome or in many cases safe.

My state secondary / grammar school had a boarding department full of Irish catholics from Monaghan and Cavan - not a bit of hassle.

I'd agree that just merging inner city / working class (for want of a better term) area high schools in some areas (e.g. west Belfast) is a recipe for disaster - but imo those situations are a significant minority in the overall NI context.

Alopex

The atheist type agenda should be promoted. When people realise religion is stupid they realise sectarianism is stupid.

Won't solve everything. Theres a lot more to the situation than just sectarianism. If religion collaped though it would help

Alopex

aquascrotum wrote: »

My state secondary / grammar school had a boarding department full of Irish catholics from Monaghan and Cavan - not a bit of hassle.

I'd agree that just merging inner city / working class (for want of a better term) area high schools in some areas (e.g. west Belfast) is a recipe for disaster - but imo those situations are a significant minority in the overall NI context.

Its those places that are the epicentres for the problems though. Look at where all the conflict happens.

I don't agree it would be a recipe for disaster. quite the opposite. If kids are put into school together at an early age its more difficult for segregated attitudes to blossom. When a Catholic kid knows a Prod he likes its harder to convince him Prods are scum. and vice versa.

You'd also get parents from each community meeting each other at the school gates and realising the other side doesn't have two heads.

steddyeddy

Alopex wrote: »

The atheist type agenda should be promoted. When people realise religion is stupid they realise sectarianism is stupid.

Won't solve everything. Theres a lot more to the situation than just sectarianism. If religion collaped though it would help

I would love to see both communities coming together!

T runner

KeithAFC wrote: »

How do you come to that conclusion? My support for the Union and being a Loyalist isn't down to boredom as you put it. It is to keep our country and to hold what is dear to us.

If we lose our country, we lose everything.

"we" being Protestants in NI which demonstrates that the sectarian divide is still entrenched.

During partition some Protestants may have felt they lost their State (not country, we were all Irish then).

In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth.

If you also look at Nationalists in the north you can see that people can get stronger even when the state where they live is governed supranationally and in a hostile manner to them.

The "If we lose our country, we lose everything." sentiment is a lie and is in general pedalled by people who want to keep the socio-economic and political sectarian divide alive---usually out of greed.

KeithAFC

T runner wrote: »

"we" being Protestants in NI which demonstrates that the sectarian divide is still entrenched.

During partition some Protestants may have felt they lost their State (not country, we were all Irish then).

In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth.

If you also look at Nationalists in the north you can see that people can get stronger even when the state where they live is governed supranationally and in a hostile manner to them.

The "If we lose our country, we lose everything." sentiment is a lie and is in general pedalled by people who want to keep the socio-economic and political sectarian divide alive---usually out of greed.

Why Protestant? Why not Unionists or Loyalists? If you mean the majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland, then you are correct.

T runner

Denerick wrote: »

Ironically its best economic future lies with the low tax republic to its south rather than with the creaking giant that is the UK, but thats by the by

That would be rather relevant to your economic question though?

This is not an exclusively economic debate of course, as no-one can think of the North without thinking of the peacewalls and the quasi human orc like creatures on both sides of the divide who seem to have the curious notion that continuously shooting people and blowing up bombs will bring some kind of salvation.

There isnt that much shooting going on I believe. But if you pass any loyalist area you will see the tell tale KAT signs telling you that there will be a sectarian divide for a long time yet. The sectarian side of the troubles is just a manifestaion of the poisonous hatred that can exist where a certain class of people are viewed as sub-human.

People say 'United Ireland' or 'Defend the Union' but what they really mean is 'I am incredibly bored'.

People have been siding with Ireland or England there for over 400 years. As ive pointed out the divide runs through all society. It manifests itself in violence in the working class who have been put on the battlefield by powerful vested interests over several centuries.

They do not realise that perhaps the culture that tells them that Catholics are stupid, dirty and inferior might be lying to them or that violently attacking the state when not for reasons of defending the lives of family and community may have the affect of reinforcing determination for teh continuation of that state.

Beyond their hate filled eyes lie future possibilities uninfluenced by such pathetic distractions. If they had less time on their hands and more independant means that didn't rely on illegal activites I'm sure most of the social problems there would pretty much cease.

Secular, non-political state education. Wont happen anytime soon.

So what is to be done? What can be done? Is there any cure for the north or is destined to remain a snarky and resentful backwater?

As NI was built around the number of Protestants and Catholics in it, then this will remain a vital consideration.

The main reason for Catholic advancement has been that the Protestant ruling class realised that without some appeasement they might lose everything by losing a majority in NI.

I see the continuing gaining of power of Catholics as being beneficial to Loyalists also and poorer people. The equalling up of society there (a long way to go) will either reach some sort equality in the middleclasses which should facilitate a peaceful drift towards a one state Island or a more prolonged status quo.

One thing is certain it is sure that the British state can and has contained troubles in Ireland and NI over several centuries.

The main reason theer isnt a united Ireland is because of the threat of bloody civil war. As society equals and loyalists become more disaffected. Expect more trouble. Trouble guarantees British rule, it may reshape how it is implemented but it guarantees it.

Rebelheart

Alopex wrote: »

The atheist type agenda should be promoted. When people realise religion is stupid they realise sectarianism is stupid.

This is stupid, as if people are going out throwing bottles/burning children alive etc because of a theological difference. Chimerical, flippant nonsense.

Cork boy 55

Now
(1) Repartition
(2) Population movements/swaps
This is what should have happened in 1998 GFA IMO

thirty years time
Unity on an agreed basis.

see image/map black line new border

HellsAngel

Denerick wrote: »

Northern Ireland is a strange place, it has some of the most deliciously black humour on the planet and if you like that sort of thing you'll have a great night out in Belfast or Derry (Watch out for the random assaults and undercurrent of sectarianism though) Its economy however is anaemic, far too reliant on a public sector that is going to suffer massive cuts over the coming years. Ironically its best economic future lies with the low tax republic to its south rather than with the creaking giant that is the UK, but thats by the by.

This is not an exclusively economic debate of course, as no-one can think of the North without thinking of the peacewalls and the quasi human orc like creatures on both sides of the divide who seem to have the curious notion that continuously shooting people and blowing up bombs will bring some kind of salvation. But realistically if these scamps had proper jobs, reasonable life expectations and genuine relationships across divides they wouldn't resort to terrorism and petty crookery. People say 'United Ireland' or 'Defend the Union' but what they really mean is 'I am incredibly bored'. Beyond their hate filled eyes lie future possibilities uninfluenced by such pathetic distractions. If they had less time on their hands and more independant means that didn't rely on illegal activites I'm sure most of the social problems there would pretty much cease.

So what is to be done? What can be done? Is there any cure for the north or is destined to remain a snarky and resentful backwater?

Strange language from a guy who has John Hume as his political hero......

And are those of us in the south that have supported SF down the years and the increasing numbers who will vote for them in the future, also "quasi human orc like creatures" ?

Rebelheart

A good post steddyeddy and I agree with most of it. Being a positive sort of fellow who avoids arguments (:D), I'll just focus on the part with which I disagree:

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well first of all I would ban all caholic schools outright and however few protestent schools there are should go too.

All British state schools are, as a matter of legal fact, Protestant schools. It would be hard for them not to be given that for all its aspirations to being a liberal, inclusive and tolerant state, the British state still refuses to allow anybody but an Anglican Protestant to be head of their state in 2011, just as it was in 1711.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The second point is wheter or not state schools would be a hostile envoirment for catholics.

As long as the state in question is explicitly an institutionally anti-Catholic one, then of course it would be.


I'm strongly in favour of removing all religious control of education, but this notion that the British state is not an institutionally Protestant one is derisory in the extreme.

Now that I think of it, the entire concept of Britishness is both anti-Irish and anti-Roman Catholic in its very origins in the seventeenth century. Some of the institutions of the British state quite simply have not been modernised to include Catholics and the like and remain unashamedly and inexcusably hostile to them. The usual apologists for British imperial culture don't like this being too known, but happily receive succour from the fact that their anti-papist bigotry remains institutionalised in the British state in 2011.

T runner

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why Protestant? Why not Unionists or Loyalists? If you mean the majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland, then you are correct.

Yes i am correct demonstrating that the sectarian divide is very strong in your mindset. Protestants equate losing the connection with Britain as losing everything. In fact there would be little discernable difference in your lives if taht development took place. If you decided to butcher a load of Catholics over it, then there would be a substantial change for the worse foer everyone.

As ive siad your fellow Irish Protestants down south lost nothing by that development and even in the case where the state establishment is hostile to their religion, nationality, their very existance (as in the case of Catholics in Ireland and then N Ireland) people are never reduced to nothing by a state except in very rare circumstances.

i think you are very well aware of the UKs attempts to reduce Catholics in Ireland to nothing in the past and fear retribution. Protestant experience under Irish rule should dissuade Northern Protestants of this but this seems to be very conveniently ignored. Doesnt fit with the "culture" i guess.

KeithAFC

T runner wrote: »

Yes i am correct demonstrating that the sectarian divide is very strong in your mindset. Protestants equate losing the connection with Britain as losing everything. In fact there would be little discernable difference in your lives if taht development took place. If you decided to butcher a load of Catholics over it, then there would be a substantial change for the worse foer everyone.

As ive siad your fellow Irish Protestants down south lost nothing by that development and even in the case where the state establishment is hostile to their religion, nationality, their very existance (as in the case of Catholics in Ireland and then N Ireland) people are never reduced to nothing by a state except in very rare circumstances.

i think you are very well aware of the UKs attempts to reduce Catholics in Ireland to nothing in the past and fear retribution. Protestant experience under Irish rule should dissuade Northern Protestants of this but this seems to be very conveniently ignored. Doesnt fit with the "culture" i guess.

I think you will find that a lot of Protestants did lose a lot and decided to move to Northern Ireland or the rest of the UK. Huge numbers left. So you can't say that for every Protestant.

I wasn't talking about Protestants. I was talking about Unionists or Loyalists.

T runner

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Now
(1) Repartition
(2) Population movements/swaps
This is what should have happened in 1998 GFA IMO

thirty years time
Unity on an agreed basis.

see image/map black line new border

Repartition wont work. The reasons for partition in the first place have evaporated. The new "reason" ie we are now British, doesnt really wash.

Belfast has 50/50 population. Do you think it fair to ask west Belfast to remain partitioned?

A fair secular state is the answer. I see large powerful sub areas to start with. The area outside the border on your screen could be subsumed into teh larger southern area. Belfast to have a seperate area, and teh remainder to ahve a seperate area. A different police force for tehse areas would be desireable until trust is established. Citizens have a right to feel protected. Many Protestants may not feel teh gardai can do this for reasons rational or irrational.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think you will find that a lot of Protestants did lose a lot and decided to move to Northern Ireland or the rest of the UK. Huge numbers left. So you can't say that for every Protestant.

I wasn't talking about Protestants. I was talking about Unionists or Loyalists.

Keith in all honesty you dont speak for protestents. unionists or loylaists you only speak for hardline unionists who class people according to religion. There is a massive difference between unionist and hardline unionist so I think its clear to make the distinction. An example of this would be that moderate unionists supported equal rights for catholics during the marchs and the hardline unionists threatened the moderate unionists at gun point for asociating with catholics. Just to make the distinction for other people who see all unionists as the same.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

Keith in all honesty you dont speak for protestents. unionists or loylaists you only speak for hardline unionists who class people according to religion. There is a massive difference between unionist and hardline unionist so I think its clear to make the distinction. An example of this would be that moderate unionists supported equal rights for catholics during the marchs and the hardline unionists threatened the moderate unionists at gun point for asociating with catholics. Just to make the distinction for other people who see all unionists as the same.

I'm a loyalist. My post wasn't about Protestants. I don't see why you bring up Protestants in this discussion.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

I'm a loyalist. My post wasn't about Protestants. I don't see why you bring up Protestants in this discussion.

I think you will find that a lot of Protestants did lose a lot and decided to move to Northern Ireland or the rest of the UK. Huge numbers left. So you can't say that for every Protestant.

I think someone may have hacked your profile keith.

Denerick

Rebelheart wrote: »

Now that I think of it, the entire concept of Britishness is both anti-Irish and anti-Roman Catholic in its very origins in the seventeenth century. Some of the institutions of the British state quite simply have not been modernised to include Catholics and the like and remain unashamedly and inexcusably hostile to them. The usual apologists for British imperial culture don't like this being too known, but happily receive succour from the fact that their anti-papist bigotry remains institutionalised in the British state in 2011.

I can't believe I had to take you off my ignore list in order to read this 'insight'. That sort of analysis may have been applicable in the years immediately after 1829 and perhaps up until the end of the 19th century, but if you really believe what you typed there then you simply haven't got eyes. Britain has been a de facto atheist country for the past 50 years and Catholics have always risen high in the State apparatus, even during the darkest years of the 19th century. Take the bloody blinkers off and stop making excuses.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think someone may have hacked your profile keith.

Yes, when some one else brought up Protestants. I said you can't say that because an awful lot of Protestants DID feel they lost out and decided to move to Northern Ireland.

T runner

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think you will find that a lot of Protestants did lose a lot and decided to move to Northern Ireland or the rest of the UK. Huge numbers left. So you can't say that for every Protestant.

I wasn't talking about Protestants. I was talking about Unionists or Loyalists.

That is simply not true. It is a myth and you need to get your facts right. Most Protestants left the south before partition. No doubt some feared and believed that they would be persecuted for their religion in a southern state. This wasnt due to anything real: it was due to the usual whispered lies.

After all the idea of partitioning Ireland was to set up a Protestant state in the North. Therefore some people close to the border moved to be part of the Protestant state. There was no forcing them out, they unrooted themselves purely as a result of the desire for a sectarian partition of Ireland by Ulster Protestants.

Many who moved worked and lived close to the border so it was convenient to move without changing jobs. Mostly people didnt bother.

There was a small spike shortly after independence: probably Families with the breadwinner in the British army forced (by his job) to move.

A small minority left. So whover told you that "huge numbers left" is again lying to you.

If you compare the situation with that of Catholics in NI where the population feel from 33% to 22% in just 10 years. And those people were burnt and kicked out. You see Protestants in Ulster wanted a sectarian state and were willing to carry out criminal acts against innocent families to get it.

Get your facts straight in future. Whatever you were fed growing up about the south or irishness you should double check. I have read many books and references so that i know that my knowledge is not based on the prejudice of the person who imparted that knowledge.

T runner

Denerick wrote: »

I can't believe I had to take you off my ignore list in order to read this 'insight'. That sort of analysis may have been applicable in the years immediately after 1829 and perhaps up until the end of the 19th century, but if you really believe what you typed there then you simply haven't got eyes. Britain has been a de facto atheist country for the past 50 years and Catholics have always risen high in the State apparatus, even during the darkest years of the 19th century. Take the bloody blinkers off and stop making excuses.

But thats what he said. He said that these prejudices remained institutionalised...which technically they do.

KeithAFC

That is simply not true. It is a myth and you need to get your facts right. Most Protestants left the south before partition. No doubt some feared and believed that they would be persecuted for their religion in a southern state. This wasnt due to anything real: it was due to the usual whispered lies.

You just need to look at the stats and the figures of that time and the amount of Protestants leaving to move up to Ulster/Northern Ireland. That the key period in Protestants deciding they didn’t feel welcome in the South.

After all the idea of partitioning Ireland was to set up a Protestant state in the North. Therefore some people close to the border moved to be part of the Protestant state. There was no forcing them out, they unrooted themselves purely as a result of the desire for a sectarian partition of Ireland by Ulster Protestants.

Not just boarder counties but also the likes of Dublin. Protestants all over the island moved to Northern Ireland. No one said they weren’t all forced out (although you probably did have some forced from intimidation) but look at the figures of Protestants in the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland.

It is hugely slanted in one way.

A small minority left. So whover told you that "huge numbers left" is again lying to you.

That is just not true is it? Many people in that Northern Ireland thread have basically admitted that a lot of Protestants decided to move.

If you compare the situation with that of Catholics in NI where the population feel from 33% to 22% in just 10 years. And those people were burnt and kicked out. You see Protestants in Ulster wanted a sectarian state and were willing to carry out criminal acts against innocent families to get it.

We aren't talking about Catholics who had left Northern Ireland. We are talking about Protestants who had moved from the South into Northern Ireland. I think you should stay on topic on that point.

Get your facts straight in future. Whatever you were fed growing up about the south or irishness you should double check. I have read many books and references so that i know that my knowledge is not based on the prejudice of the person who imparted that knowledge.

I know my history more than well enough and the figures support my argument on the drastic fall of Protestants in the Republic.

getzls

irishh_bob wrote: »

you mean scotland , the unionists are scottish , beit in terms of where their ancestors originated from or thier personality , they are scottish

There is the the story of the Irish going over to Scotland long time ago and Scottish people descend from Ireland.

steddyeddy

This whole conflict seems to stem from some unionists fearing things that never seem to happen.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

This whole conflict seems to stem from some unionists fearing things that never seem to happen.

Not really true is it? Unionists back in the day had a fear of Home Rule equals Rome Rule and yet I have see many people on this forum agree with that view and say Rome had a massive influence on the Republic for years.

getzls

steddyeddy wrote: »

This whole conflict seems to stem from some unionists fearing things that never seem to happen.

Ever since the foundatian of N.I, i think everything did happen to them.

droicead

how about we set all the different affiations adrift out to sea and may the mother nature deal with them as she so wishes...theres a good start and a good two finger salute to the likes of the vatican who have lied and fooled ordinary folk for centuries...amen..or they could tell us the origin of the word amen:)

Denerick

T runner wrote: »

But thats what he said. He said that these prejudices remained institutionalised...which technically they do.

There are no meaningful anti catholic prejudices within the operating structure of the British State. To suggest otherwise is literally insane. Nobody outside the 6 county sewer could give a flying fúck about either protestantism or catholicism.

booom

to quote a great northern band - 'tow it out and sink it'

southsiderosie

Denerick wrote: »

There are no meaningful anti catholic prejudices within the operating structure of the British State. To suggest otherwise is literally insane. Nobody outside the 6 county sewer could give a flying fúck about either protestantism or catholicism.

The British King or Queen rules over subjects that, by law, could never be the head of state because of their religion. Regardless of current church attendance, there is still structural discrimination against Catholics in the British ruling apparatus because of the monarchy's ties to the Anglican church. Most modern monarchies have done away with primogeniture; why not this?

You may see this as meaningless, but the monarch is still a powerful political, social, and cultural figure in Britain and the Commonwealth, and I can see why people might be annoyed that religious discrimination is still sanctioned within that institution. This is not just a nordy issue. It is, frankly, a common sense issue, especially in this day and age.

Finally, it seems like the entire point of this thread is to **** all over Northern Ireland. Do you actually have anything constructive to say about it, or is this just your chance to laugh at how backwards it is compared to their fiscally sound southern neighbors or their socially cohesive eastern overlords?

Rebelheart

Rebelheart wrote: »

Now that I think of it, the entire concept of Britishness is both anti-Irish and anti-Roman Catholic in its very origins in the seventeenth century. Some of the institutions of the British state quite simply have not been modernised to include Catholics and the like and remain unashamedly and inexcusably hostile to them. The usual apologists for British imperial culture don't like this being too known, but happily receive succour from the fact that their anti-papist bigotry remains institutionalised in the British state in 2011.

And what do you know:

Denerick wrote: »

I can't believe I had to take you off my ignore list in order to read this 'insight'. That sort of analysis may have been applicable in the years immediately after 1829 and perhaps up until the end of the 19th century, but if you really believe what you typed there then you simply haven't got eyes. Britain has been a de facto atheist country for the past 50 years and Catholics have always risen high in the State apparatus, even during the darkest years of the 19th century. Take the bloody blinkers off and stop making excuses.

You only put me on ignore because last time you were spouting ignorant nonsense about 1798 and I rightly put you in your place in front of everybody else. But hey, nice to see you've popped up to act as an apologist for the institutionally sectarian nature of the modern British state. So much for your brazen lecture to "take the bloody blinkers off and stop making excuses" while you ignore the institutional anti-Catholicism of your beloved British state

Denerick wrote: »

There are no meaningful anti catholic prejudices within the operating structure of the British State. To suggest otherwise is literally insane.

Interesting that in the world according to Denerick the position of head of the entire British state is not "meaningful". Hmmmm. :rolleyes:

And, to take one of many other examples, you could ask the lawyers who cannot practice law in Britain unless they take an oath of allegiance to the sectarian British monarchy about how meaningful that institutionally sectarian ban is.

But you continue defending the indefensible and calling those who point out the obvious and indisputable institutional sectarianism of your state "literally insane" for stating well-known facts.

And next in Denerick's line of attack: black is really white! You'd have to be "literally insane" to say otherwise.

PS: Way to demonise all 1.5 million people in the Six Counties in your OP. :rolleyes:

irishh_bob

Denerick wrote: »

There are no meaningful anti catholic prejudices within the operating structure of the British State. To suggest otherwise is literally insane. Nobody outside the 6 county sewer could give a flying fúck about either protestantism or catholicism.

scotland is a deeply anti catholic place , many of us have the scars to proove it

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Not really true is it? Unionists back in the day had a fear of Home Rule equals Rome Rule and yet I have see many people on this forum agree with that view and say Rome had a massive influence on the Republic for years.

Well good post keith you have a point with that certainly. Ill put it this way theres a lot less people in the south who have problems with protestents than you think.

steddyeddy

getzls wrote: »

Ever since the foundatian of N.I, i think everything did happen to them.

Well as keith says I can understand the catholic rule fear it wouldnt be objective of me to complain about catholic treatment in the north without agknowledging that some people didnt like catholic rule in the south. It has me thinking would a secular state have been more attractive to unionists.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

A good post steddyeddy and I agree with most of it. Being a positive sort of fellow who avoids arguments (:D), I'll just focus on the part with which I disagree:





All British state schools are, as a matter of legal fact, Protestant schools. It would be hard for them not to be given that for all its aspirations to being a liberal, inclusive and tolerant state, the British state still refuses to allow anybody but an Anglican Protestant to be head of their state in 2011, just as it was in 1711.





As long as the state in question is explicitly an institutionally anti-Catholic one, then of course it would be.


I'm strongly in favour of removing all religious control of education, but this notion that the British state is not an institutionally Protestant one is derisory in the extreme.

Now that I think of it, the entire concept of Britishness is both anti-Irish and anti-Roman Catholic in its very origins in the seventeenth century. Some of the institutions of the British state quite simply have not been modernised to include Catholics and the like and remain unashamedly and inexcusably hostile to them. The usual apologists for British imperial culture don't like this being too known, but happily receive succour from the fact that their anti-papist bigotry remains institutionalised in the British state in 2011.

I love your posts, they never fail to come up with something completely ridiculous.

Have you ever been to a British School? In fact, have you ever actually been to Britain?

There were five comprehensives in my town, three mixed, one all male, one all female.

One of the mixed schools was CofE sponsored, but 25% of its pupils are Muslim. In my school, my year was about 10%Muslim, 5% Hindu and Sikh and the balance "Other". Other than religious education, there was never any mention of religion so my class could have been mainly catholic as far as I know.

Should we compare that to the 96% Catholic run Irish system?

There is one out dated but very complicated to unpick piece of anti catholic legislation in the UK, which unless you had aspirations on marrying into the royal family wouldn't affect you anyway. That particular law is also sexist, but that obviously isn't an issue to you.

Remind me again who has to swear "In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare....". Surely not the head of a modern secular state?

Fratton Fred

southsiderosie wrote: »

The British King or Queen rules over subjects that, by law, could never be the head of state because of their religion. Regardless of current church attendance, there is still structural discrimination against Catholics in the British ruling apparatus because of the monarchy's ties to the Anglican church. Most modern monarchies have done away with primogeniture; why not this?

You may see this as meaningless, but the monarch is still a powerful political, social, and cultural figure in Britain and the Commonwealth, and I can see why people might be annoyed that religious discrimination is still sanctioned within that institution. This is not just a nordy issue. It is, frankly, a common sense issue, especially in this day and age.

The Queen does not have subjects and no, she is no more a powerful figure than the Irish president.

I wonder how young atheists, Hindus or Muslims growing up in Ireland feel about growing up in a state where they can never become President?

paul71

southsiderosie wrote: »

The British King or Queen rules over subjects that, by law, could never be the head of state because of their religion.
QUOTE]


The term subject was removed by law 30 years under British Nationality Act 1981, and replaced by the word Citizen. The Quenn no longer has any Subjects in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland.

Funnily enough the only subjects of the Queen that still exsist because of this act are the residents of the few British oversea territories remaining, and people from the Republic of Ireland born before the foundation of the free state who retained their British Citizenship status.

junder

aquascrotum wrote: »

Few points / opinions....

I'd wholly agree with the sentiment of ending segregated education - but (unusually for this board) this isn't a mechanism put in place by the big bad Brits. There are state schools that are open to everyone, and there are Catholic maintained schools. Catholic parents choose to send their kids to CCMS schools (leaving state schools to be mostly protestant or a.n. other). Also, in my experience a fair number of deliberately titled "Integrated" schools have majority protestant enrolments. IMO that's quite similar to the Alliance Party effect in NI - moderate unionists / protestants are happy to vote the cross community option / sent the kids to the cross community school, but if no catholics do the same then it's not very cross community - so what's the point?

Economically the south isn't going to have the financial muscle to either prop up the existing public sector reliance, or reform the public sector and create a private sector, for a long time. So in the absence of a better alternative I'm much happier to throw my lot in with the slightly basket-case UK economy than the EU IMF hamstrung Irish economy.

I would agree that a lot of the "deprived" areas are happy to remain "deprived" - or at least that there is a culture of acceptance that that's their lot - and there are definitely quite a few in there who relish in the annual excuse for a good riot, to be immediately blamed on social deprivation. No idea how you beat that tbh.

It's depressing that the first proper troubles-free generation in their formative teen / post teen years are making their entrance into a crushed economy with limited opportunity. IMO it just means that the boredom effect kicks in - hence the spurt in young support for radical dissident republicanism and mirrored effect on the PUL side.

good post