Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

seachto7

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not.

Godge

seachto7 wrote: »

Much as the loyalists/unionists like to bang on about Britain, the fact is they are not English, Scottish or Welsh, and are Irish (and British) whether they like it or not, due to the fact they are born and raised on the rock that is geographically called "Ireland".
.

That is great then, everything solved. As we have all been born on the British Isles, let's go back to calling ourselves British because of that geographical fact.

If you want to be pedantic about it, we can say we are simultaneously Irish, British, European and citizens of the world based on geography.

Don't think this type of childish point gets us anywhere though.

seachto7

What's childish about it? Would you not agree that people in Northern Ireland are both Irish and British? The same as someone in Glasgow is Scottish and British? They cannot deny they are Scottish?

Godge

seachto7 wrote: »

What's childish about it? Would you not agree that people in Northern Ireland are both Irish and British? The same as someone in Glasgow is Scottish and British? They cannot deny they are Scottish?

Yes, I would agree, but that applies to nationalists as well as unionists, they are both British.

Sheldons Brain

Scottish people are British by definition, they live in Britain. NI people are British by ownership, they live in a colony of Britain. Not quite the same thing.

on the river

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Scottish people are British by definition, they live in Britain. NI people are British by ownership, they live in a colony of Britain. Not quite the same thing.

The gaelic cheftians was there long before the british.

Northern Ireland citizens have a right to support Ireland.

The O Neills fought against a foreign invasion .

Ireland is united in rugby.

Ireland is united in economics

Ireland will be united .

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

The gaelic cheftians was there long before the british.

British history is a bit more complex than that.

Both what we call England and Scotland (and Wales) were populated by various Celtic tribes. The Romans were the first to invade, Romanizing the population into what we call Romano-British. Then followed the Saxons and Angles and later still the Normans, in the south. The north too had invasions, notably by the Danes, who's mark can still be seen with the Scots language.

So neither could be said to have somehow remained exactly static and homogeneous before the 18th century.

How Scotland became a part of Britain isn't black and white either, because it was the result of a personal union when the Scottish king (James VI of Scotland) became king of England (James I of England), so it was technically Scotland taking over England rather than the other way around, even though English influence became dominant thereafter.

But here's the kicker; were we to consider them separate on the basis that some Celtic chieftains were usurped by some invaders, then there's very few European countries that should be united. Actually, none.

Northern Ireland citizens have a right to support Ireland.

Absolutely, just as southern Irish citizens have a right to support Manchester United.

The O Neills fought against a foreign invasion .

And lost. And then did a runner. And they fought to protect their lands - remember nationalism post-dates them, in reality they fought largely for the same reasons most nobles fought, for land. Property.

Ireland is united in rugby.

Unification based on a single Rugby team... LOL.

Ireland is united in economics

Also, could you explain how Ireland is economically united?

Ireland will be united .

If it is, it won't be on the basis of that rather poor list of reasons you've just given.

gallag

Am a N.Ireland unionist and am very much Irish and British! Proud to be Irish and proud to be British! I just simply believe Ireland is better in a union with England, Scotland and Wales, looking south of the border and the corrupt irish government ruining their country I am more convinced than ever! I still believe the people of the Republic of Ireland will vote to join N.I as part of the UK before we vote to join the sinking ship of the Republic.

on the river

Both what we call England and Scotland (and Wales) were populated by various Celtic tribes. The Romans were the first to invade, Romanizing the population into what we call Romano-British. Then followed the Saxons and Angles and later still the Normans, in the south. The north too had invasions, notably by the Danes, who's mark can still be seen with the Scots language

So neither could be said to have somehow remained exactly static and homogeneous before the 18th century.

How Scotland became a part of Britain isn't black and white either, because it was the result of a personal union when the Scottish king (James VI of Scotland) became king of England (James I of England), so it was technically Scotland taking over England rather than the other way around, even though English influence became dominant thereafter.

But here's the kicker; were we to consider them separate on the basis that some Celtic chieftains were usurped by some invaders, then there's very few European countries that should be united. Actually, none.

. The Normans became part of the Irish way of life. all the rest you said has nothing to do with the Irish question.

Absolutely, just as southern Irish citizens have a right to support Manchester United.

and northern Ireland citizens have a right to support celtic or rangers.

Unification based on a single Rugby team... LOL.

This is a starting point for unification which can bring all sides together

and should not be laughed at.

If it is, it won't be on the basis of that rather poor list of reasons you've just given.[/

these reasons are just the start of a open discussion on Irish identity
and how are relationship with britian shaped are history.

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

. The Normans became part of the Irish way of life. all the rest you said has nothing to do with the Irish question.

That's because I was responding to what appeared to be a point you were making about the Scots. If you were discussing Gaelic chieftains in NI, then my final point still stands - territories have been invaded and peoples displaced or assimilated and so on throughout history, it's just how nations form and evolve.

If you want to really talk about some group having a greater right to a land because they were there first, then those Gaelic chieftains don't qualify either, because the Celts originally invaded Ireland and displaced the Neolithic population that preceded them. Or should Israeli Jews have a greater right to live in Israel-Palestine than Palestinian Muslims/Christians, because they were there first. Maybe both should clear off if the Canaanites return to claim their rightful homeland...

So you do see that in itself, it's a rather dubious argument to use?

and northern Ireland citizens have a right to support celtic or rangers.

Absolutely.

This is a starting point for unification which can bring all sides together

and should not be laughed at.

If you go from those staring points and then quickly conclude "Ireland will be united" without bothering to offer anything more than starting points, then you will have people laughing.

Don't get me wrong; there are good arguments that can be used in favour of unification. It's just you didn't present any of them.

seachto7

gallag wrote: »

Am a N.Ireland unionist and am very much Irish and British! Proud to be Irish and proud to be British! I just simply believe Ireland is better in a union with England, Scotland and Wales, looking south of the border and the corrupt irish government ruining their country I am more convinced than ever! I still believe the people of the Republic of Ireland will vote to join N.I as part of the UK before we vote to join the sinking ship of the Republic.

Strange one. I often think what way Ireland would be if we had home rule "back in the day", and it was "Ireland" as part of the UK?

There is, or was something noble in wanting independence, and I think that fact that the ruling powers that be always tried to "keep Paddy in his place" is reason enough to assume the Irish would never vote to be part of the UK.

I couldn't care less what flag is flying over the GPO. I'm more worried about work, and the state of the health system amongst other things.

Nationalism can be a bad thing as well. People claiming credit for sh*t they didn't do from a time they weren't around.

Karl Stein

Godge wrote: »

Yes, I would agree, but that applies to nationalists as well as unionists, they are both British.

Wrong. There are an insignificant number of Nationalists who'd describe themselves as British - almost as insignificant as your opinion.

seachto7 wrote: »

What's childish about it? Would you not agree that people in Northern Ireland are both Irish and British?

No. I'd say they're all Irish. Ireland is the island to the west of Britain. Britain is the island to the east of Ireland.

The same as someone in Glasgow is Scottish and British? They cannot deny they are Scottish?

Yet, pathetically, 40 % of people in the 6 counties who've lived on this island for generations describe themselves as 'British only'.

Karl Stein

gallag wrote: »

I just simply believe Ireland is better in a union with England, Scotland and Wales, looking south of the border and the corrupt irish government ruining their country I am more convinced than ever! I still believe the people of the Republic of Ireland will vote to join N.I as part of the UK before we vote to join the sinking ship of the Republic.

Fantasy. There is no political party that advocates returning to the shotgun wedding - advocating a return to it would be political suicide for any fool considering making a career out of it.

You say Ireland is a 'sinking ship' well 'British' banks speculated, and should have lost, tens of billions of pounds in this ship and if many of us had our way they wouldn't be getting a penny back.

orangesoda

seachto7 wrote: »

Strange one. I often think what way Ireland would be if we had home rule "back in the day", and it was "Ireland" as part of the UK?

There is, or was something noble in wanting independence, and I think that fact that the ruling powers that be always tried to "keep Paddy in his place" is reason enough to assume the Irish would never vote to be part of the UK.

I couldn't care less what flag is flying over the GPO. I'm more worried about work, and the state of the health system amongst other things.

Nationalism can be a bad thing as well. People claiming credit for sh*t they didn't do from a time they weren't around.

True, I once read a comment somewhere on boards saying that 'we' should have fought harder in the 1920's if we wanted our independence, i doubt donegal men fought any harder than tyrone men

The Corinthian

seachto7 wrote: »

Strange one. I often think what way Ireland would be if we had home rule "back in the day", and it was "Ireland" as part of the UK?

You mean had Parnell been able to keep it in his pants?

It's an interesting question. Irish nationalism was, until the late nineteenth century, largely an interest of the educated Anglo-Irish class; Grattan, Tone and Emmet were all protestant, Anglo-Irish and in many cases were descendants of the plantations and/or Freemasons. With O'Connell and Catholic Emancipation, the nationalist cause began to shift from what was essentially an Enlightenment movement to a Romantic one, which was far more tied with Roman Catholicism than before.

Had Parnell succeeded, we probably would have followed a path simelar to Australia or Canada - self governing and eventually gaining full independence, but retaining the British monarch as head of state. Partition would have been less likely, as northern Protestant fears of 'Rome Rule' would have been diluted. Indeed, we would also still have a much higher Protestant population, in the south, and not seen it collapse from about 30% to 5% after independence.

Class divisions between Protestant and Catholic would have persisted, mainly because the Protestants wouldn't have largely left, but given the size of the Catholic majority, these would have likely vanished by World War II (which we would have entered on the Allied side). Economically, it's difficult to say, but my guess is there would have been far less of an emphasis on agriculture (which was an obsession of Fianna Fail in particular) and we would have seen a greater degree of industrialization.

All of which is speculation because Parnell didn't keep it in his pants and, worse still, got caught. And even if he hadn't, it's also quite possible that he would not have succeeded in attaining Home Rule.

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

You mean had Parnell been able to keep it in his pants?

It's an interesting question. Irish nationalism was, until the late nineteenth century, largely an interest of the educated Anglo-Irish class; Grattan, Tone and Emmet were all protestant, Anglo-Irish and in many cases were descendants of the plantations and/or Freemasons. With O'Connell and Catholic Emancipation, the nationalist cause began to shift from what was essentially an Enlightenment movement to a Romantic one, which was far more tied with Roman Catholicism than before.

Had Parnell succeeded, we probably would have followed a path simelar to Australia or Canada - self governing and eventually gaining full independence, but retaining the British monarch as head of state. Partition would have been less likely, as northern Protestant fears of 'Rome Rule' would have been diluted. Indeed, we would also still have a much higher Protestant population, in the south, and not seen it collapse from about 30% to 5% after independence.

Class divisions between Protestant and Catholic would have persisted, mainly because the Protestants wouldn't have largely left, but given the size of the Catholic majority, these would have likely vanished by World War II (which we would have entered on the Allied side). Economically, it's difficult to say, but my guess is there would have been far less of an emphasis on agriculture (which was an obsession of Fianna Fail in particular) and we would have seen a greater degree of industrialization.

All of which is speculation because Parnell didn't keep it in his pants and, worse still, got caught. And even if he hadn't, it's also quite possible that he would not have succeeded in attaining Home Rule.

"what if " history has no relevance to this thread.

We have to base are arugements in the facts .

Ireland was divided before partition and divided after it.

circadian

Karl Stein wrote: »

Wrong. There are an insignificant number of Nationalists who'd describe themselves as British - almost as insignificant as your opinion.



No. I'd say they're all Irish. Ireland is the island to the west of Britain. Britain is the island to the east of Ireland.



Yet, pathetically, 40 % of people in the 6 counties who've lived on this island for generations describe themselves as 'British only'.

I think you're oversimplifying the complexity of national identity in the North.

sparky42

To return to the topic of costs of running Northern Ireland BBC NI has an article up on the 2011/2012 spending, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-26845607

I admit that it's a few years ago but it's an accurate breakdown and I doubt the figures have changed substantially since then.

some highlights of that year were they had a deficit of £9 billion, spending over 22 billion and only raising 14 billion. The Total Income Tax of that year was 2.5 billion pounds, that's about 1/4 of the Republic's Total Income Tax.

Basically short of further massive economic burdens on the Republic I can't see how we could carry that without huge realignments of the NI spending.

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

"what if " history has no relevance to this thread.

We have to base are arugements in the facts .

Ireland was divided before partition and divided after it.

TBH, I'm not entirely sure what this response was relevant to either.

RoyalCelt

sparky42 wrote: »

To return to the topic of costs of running Northern Ireland BBC NI has an article up on the 2011/2012 spending, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-26845607

I admit that it's a few years ago but it's an accurate breakdown and I doubt the figures have changed substantially since then.

some highlights of that year were they had a deficit of £9 billion, spending over 22 billion and only raising 14 billion. The Total Income Tax of that year was 2.5 billion pounds, that's about 1/4 of the Republic's Total Income Tax.

Basically short of further massive economic burdens on the Republic I can't see how we could carry that without huge realignments of the NI spending.

Will it wouldn't make up the deficit if north and south lived together peacefully I think costs would go way down for things like policing and the black market would suffer big time. NI would likely get a lot more jobs through multinational investments.

sparky42

RoyalCelt wrote: »

Will it wouldn't make up the deficit if north and south lived together peacefully I think costs would go way down for things like policing and the black market would suffer big time. NI would likely get a lot more jobs through multinational investments.

Short of altering history that's not a reality that's going to happen though. We have to live with what we have, in which case even if there was unification sometime in the future, the costs for security is going to go up no matter what.

In terms of NI jobs, another article on BBC NI yesterday from a UK study showed that Protestant NI Boys are the third worst educated group in the UK, and highlighted the long term impact that would have on NI investment/opportunities. NI has plenty of other issues besides Nationalist/Unionist that reduce investment.

The Corinthian

RoyalCelt wrote: »

Will it wouldn't make up the deficit if north and south lived together peacefully I think costs would go way down for things like policing and the black market would suffer big time. NI would likely get a lot more jobs through multinational investments.

OK, I'll bite... if tomorrow everyone in the North were to live peacefully, why would costs go way down?

To begin with, security and policing costs would decrease, but it this really where all the money goes (genuine question)? An overall bloated public service and free social programs would appear to be as great, if not greater, drain on finances, I would have thought.

And why would the black market suddenly vanish, just because everyone is peaceful all of a sudden? There's a thriving black market in the South for goods such as cigarettes, and it didn't need any sectarian conflict to do so.

Also, as an addendum, while a peaceful environment would make the North more attractive to FDI, that alone would not make it appear - the south was able to do so with a combination of low corporate taxes and a highly educated workforce, and even if the north could afford to do the former, the latter is going to take a very long time to pay dividends.

Certainly, the economy of the North would improve were both communities to suddenly, and magically, let bygones be bygones tomorrow, but it's a lot more complicated than that and would almost certainly require cost trimming in areas that they cannot socially afford at present.

sparky42

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK, I'll bite... if tomorrow everyone in the North were to live peacefully, why would costs go way down?

To begin with, security and policing costs would decrease, but it this really where all the money goes (genuine question)? An overall bloated public service and free social programs would appear to be as great, if not greater, drain on finances, I would have thought.

And why would the black market suddenly vanish, just because everyone is peaceful all of a sudden? There's a thriving black market in the South for goods such as cigarettes, and it didn't need any sectarian conflict to do so.

Also, as an addendum, while a peaceful environment would make the North more attractive to FDI, that alone would not make it appear - the south was able to do so with a combination of low corporate taxes and a highly educated workforce, and even if the north could afford to do the former, the latter is going to take a very long time to pay dividends.

Certainly, the economy of the North would improve were both communities to suddenly, and magically, let bygones be bygones tomorrow, but it's a lot more complicated than that and would almost certainly require cost trimming in areas that they cannot socially afford at present.

Based off the 2012 figures 38% of NI spending goes on Pensions/Social Security (I'm presuming Social Welfare there), 16% on Health and 12% on Education, so security is part of the 36% left over (though UK military forces probably come under the main UK budget, so only the PSNI)

Godge

sparky42 wrote: »

Based off the 2012 figures 38% of NI spending goes on Pensions/Social Security (I'm presuming Social Welfare there), 16% on Health and 12% on Education, so security is part of the 36% left over (though UK military forces probably come under the main UK budget, so only the PSNI)

do you have link to those figures?

No money spent on tourism, sport, administration, youth affairs, culture, environment, Irish language, etc???????

sparky42

Godge wrote: »

do you have link to those figures?

No money spent on tourism, sport, administration, youth affairs, culture, environment, Irish language, etc???????

Like I posted above
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-26845607

It's a BBC NI article on a NI Department of Finance report, so all those figures are what the NI spent in 2011/2012. All of those things that you suggested must have been paid out of the remaining 8 or so billion pounds they spent but BBC only mentions the top three expenditures.

You could see if it's published on the Departments website if you want.

ardmacha

the link is in the BBC page

http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/northern-ireland-net-fiscal-balance-report

LorMal

This whole discussion is depressing. When are the Irish going to grow the fcuk up and get over the past? We scorn religion dominated societies like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen with their Burkas, their executions and their Sharia law - yet on our little rock we still want all the Catholics to live together and all the Protestants to live together? And we plot it all down in maps - this field is Protestant and this puddle is Catholic!! In 2014...!! ('Nationalist Community' 'Unionist Community' 'Loyalist Community'....)

Antiquated, parochial, hate filled, insular nonsense.

turnikett1

LorMal wrote: »

This whole discussion is depressing. When are the Irish going to grow the fcuk up and get over the past? We scorn religion dominated societies like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen with their Burkas, their executions and their Sharia law - yet on our little rock we still want all the Catholics to live together and all the Protestants to live together? And we plot it all down in maps - this field is Protestant and this puddle is Catholic!! In 2014...!! ('Nationalist Community' 'Unionist Community' 'Loyalist Community'....)

Antiquated, parochial, hate filled, insular nonsense.

lol I think you're missing the point there buddy. The conflict in Ireland has never been about religion

ancapailldorcha

turnikett1 wrote: »

lol I think you're missing the point there buddy. The conflict in Ireland has never been about religion

I'd disagree, but only to a point. I think religion is indeed a factor but it's much less significant that whether one is being classed as Unionist or Nationalist. Most, but not all Unionists would classify themselves as being Protestant/Presbyterian while Nationalists would classify themselves as being Roman Catholics. Nowadays, many more people would not identify with any sort of organised religion so your point would be more valid today than a few decades ago.

LorMal

turnikett1 wrote: »

lol I think you're missing the point there buddy. The conflict in Ireland has never been about religion

Class/Culture/Money/Identity/Bigotry/Religion/Politics ....whatever...its all unnecessarily divisive and anachronistic.