Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation
Options
Comments
-
twowheelsgood wrote: »Whether the British were involved or not is beside the point I am making. The loyalists could have done that without any help.
And just as the IRA were able to drive a truck load of fertilizer in to London in 1996 so too could the loyalists do something similar in Dublin. OR can you explain why they could not?
What you are saying here is that there can't even be a vote on it for fear of violence. From whom? The wider Unionist family?
I don't think so, the wouldn't have an ethical leg to stand on, their leader have committed to this process. Deny it and you are asking for violence from the other side, it is a catch 22.
So a vote has to happen at some point and a debate and therefore within that is the chance that the Union will be lost.
In that event, what do Unionist do...suddenly say, 'we were only codding' and join the belligerents?
What you will get is an isolated rump of opinion agitating and attempting to stop it, an ISOLATED rump, without the wider Unionist community in tow. Violence will be contained and will have no effect.0 -
twowheelsgood wrote: »The loyalists could have done that without any help.
Says who? You? Who made you an authority on the subject? To paraphrase one British Army expert, loyalists were little more than a collection of gangsters.
The PIRA lost quite a lot of operatives developing the capability to produce explosives and an extensive network of sympathises to deliver their them and get away.
Loyalists were primarily in the business of shooting innocent civilians in bookies, bars and on their way to work.The document, obtained by the Pat Finucane Centre, points to a number of mistakes, including internment and highlights what lessons have been learnt.
It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm0 -
Unionism is now in effect represented by the DUP and they did not support GFA, so I don’t know who the leader of which you speak that has committed to the process?Happyman42 wrote: »What you are saying here is that there can't even be a vote on it for fear of violence.
From whom? The wider Unionist family?
I don't think so, the wouldn't have an ethical leg to stand on, their leader have committed to this process. Deny it and you are asking for violence from the other side, it is a catch 22.
So a vote has to happen at some point and a debate and therefore within that is the chance that the Union will be lost.
In that event, what do Unionist do...suddenly say, 'we were only codding' and join the belligerents?
What you will get is an isolated rump of opinion agitating and attempting to stop it, an ISOLATED rump, without the wider Unionist community in tow. Violence will be contained and will have no effect.
And I am somewhat amused that unionism would be bound to behave ethically! It is not something they exactly have a long tradition of!
On top of this they might well take a cue from PIRA in 1996, happy to embrace the political process, provided it delivers for them. But once the wheels of progress seize up, well we know what happened next.
There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, amongst loyalist that violence delivered for republicans. It is almost inevitable that they would try the same tact in the event of a united Ireland in the short /medium term future. To think that it will quickly fizzle out, or be extinguished, is more a hope that a realistic expectation on your part.Karl Stein wrote: »Says who?Mr Justice Henry Barron wrote: »The loyalist groups who carried out the bombings in Dublin were capable of doing so without help from any section of the security forces in Northern Ireland, though this does not rule out the involvement of individual RUC, UDR or British Army members.0 -
twowheelsgood wrote: »BarronWeir said that explosives for all four bombs were supplied by a named UDR officer.
In his report, Mr Justice Barron commented on John Weir's evidence: "The Inquiry agrees with the view of An Garda Siochana that Weir's allegations regarding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings must be treated with the utmost seriousness"
wikipedia.org
The UDR was a regiment of the British Army. That's the British Army. It'd be interesting to know who his handlers were and how much assistance they provided. Loyalists didn't have an engineering department analogous to the PIRA.Colin Wallace was a civil servant engaged in propaganda and psychological operations work for
the security forces between 1972 and 1975 [he] believed then and now that some of those involved had links with either the RUC Special Branch, military intelligence or MI5.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/dublin/barron03.pdf
The British could clear all this up overnight by releasing all the documents they have on th D&M bombings but they refuse to. It can be inferred that this refusal to do so is because there is information that would be embarrassing to the British i.e. it cannot be ruled out that they helped in this attack.
Edit. Just reading the Barron Report and it seems bizarre that he'd make the statement that loyalists were capable of doing it alone when this is considered:Weir stated that whenever bombs were used by the group, the explosives for them were supplied by a named UDR officer. Weir claims to have seen him bringing explosives to the Glenanne farm on a number of occasions. He told journalist Liam Clarke:
“[He] would have brought the explosives. Where did [he] get them from? Nobody asked that. Nobody wanted to know where he was getting such large amounts of explosives… He had gelignite, fertiliser, detonators, the whole lot. Fertiliser-based explosive with a gelignite detonator.”
cain.ulst.ac.uk0 -
twowheelsgood wrote: »Unionism is now in effect represented by the DUP and they did not support GFA, so I don’t know who the leader of which you speak that has committed to the process?
And I am somewhat amused that unionism would be bound to behave ethically! It is not something they exactly have a long tradition of!
On top of this they might well take a cue from PIRA in 1996, happy to embrace the political process, provided it delivers for them. But once the wheels of progress seize up, well we know what happened next.
There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, amongst loyalist that violence delivered for republicans. It is almost inevitable that they would try the same tact in the event of a united Ireland in the short /medium term future. To think that it will quickly fizzle out, or be extinguished, is more a hope that a realistic expectation on your part.
Apologies, that was mean't to read 'leaders'
There has to be a debate and vote on this, the agreement is partly based on that.
Stall the vote or deny it and the agreement will crumble. So you have the ame possibility facing the electorate, a re-emergence of militants.
They all (the British, Irish, SF, SDLP, DUP UUP etc) have to face up to the fact that to stall, what is a process, will create a space for one side to resort back to violence and to go ahead will create space for the other side. It is they who must take responsibility. Not facing up to that responsibility of governance is what caused the lid to come off before.
They cannot allow the threat of violence to deter them from enacting the GFA, they have to stand up and fight their corner and accept the outcomes...and I mean all sides.
Not if they have lasting peace as their priority anyway.0 -
Advertisement
-
None of this is relevant to my point, also asserted by Justice Barron, that loyalists did have and would have lethal capability without collusion. But even if you continue to dispute this and insist they needed help, well in a post UI there will very likely be some, and maybe many people who are sympathetic to loyalists within the ranks of whatever police force will operate in the North. Do you presume they wouldn’t stoop to help them out again?Karl Stein wrote: »The British could clear all this up overnight by releasing all the documents they have on th D&M bombings but they refuse to. It can be inferred that this refusal to do so is because there is information that would be embarrassing to the British i.e. it cannot be ruled out that they helped in this attack.
The GFA was basically a con job perpetrated by Blair & Bertie, we just don’t yet know who is being conned. The gunmen on both sides were persuaded to desist by being told that the agreement would deliver / preserve their constitutional ambitions, which of course was impossible. The status quo favours unionists but this border poll was the deal maker for nationalists.Happyman42 wrote: »Stall the vote or deny it and the agreement will crumble. So you have the same possibility facing the electorate, a re-emergence of militants.
It is within the gift of the NI sec. of state to decide when this poll will be taken but he can defer this while there is no reasonable prospect of it being passed.
And as it is plausible that it will be a very long time, if ever, before there is a prospect of it being passed, it can be deferred indefinitely.
It won’t appear to be stalled, simply that the timing is not right yet (or ever!).
For the British to agree to a poll anytime soon would simply be to open a can of worms that I think they have no interest in opening.
There is a requirement (I think) that a poll be held every 7 years after the first one but I don’t think there is any stipulation as to when the first should happen. My guess is possibly never.0 -
twowheelsgood wrote: »loyalists did have and would have lethal capability without collusion.
Oh I know they were able to kill people (primarily Catholic civilians) it's just that I, among many, simply don't believe they were capable without outside expertise of carrying out the D&M bombings.in a post UI there will very likely be some, and maybe many people who are sympathetic to loyalists within the ranks of whatever police force will operate in the North. Do you presume they wouldn’t stoop to help them out again?
Even if we ignore the constant use of the 'parade of horribles' fallacy beloved of you and others because of your anti-UI mania it still doesn't answer the primary question 'to what ends would a murder campaign by so-called loyalists in opposition to the British and Irish be'?
It's a dead end loyalism, in its current guise, is facing UI or not. They're going to be living under a Nationalist controlled north. In the event of a UI loyalists would be a severely fractured minority concentrated in small islands peppered around the north East of the island.0 -
it dosnt matter if she was a mother a 50 if she was guilty she should had been left in the street having alot of kids dosnt make me less culpable0
-
Karl Stein wrote: »Oh I know they were able to kill people (primarily Catholic civilians) it's just that I, among many, simply don't believe they were capable without outside expertise of carrying out the D&M bombings.
Even if we ignore the constant use of the 'parade of horribles' fallacy beloved of you and others because of your anti-UI mania it still doesn't answer the primary question 'to what ends would a murder campaign by so-called loyalists in opposition to the British and Irish be'?
It's a dead end loyalism, in its current guise, is facing UI or not. They're going to be living under a Nationalist controlled north. In the event of a UI loyalists would be a severely fractured minority concentrated in small islands peppered around the north East of the island.
Again, one of the largest employers of the unionist community has been the british army, with thousands of trained, battle hardened solders in the ranks of unionism do you really think they would be unable to cause serious trouble? And again, you are assuming the Irish government will not mess up and have its own bloody Sunday, what happens when the first loyalist protesters are killed by a guard? You are missing the point that the unionists did not have a hunger to attack the Irish government, they had what they wanted! No hunger strikers! No bloody Sunday! No lack of civil/equal rights! The unionists considered themselves to have a defensive role. And again in the event of a UI the unionist campaign would be to destabilise the government and force an independent N.I.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Again, one of the largest employers of the unionist community has been the british army, with thousands of trained, battle hardened solders in the ranks of unionism do you really think they would be unable to cause serious trouble? And again, you are assuming the Irish government will not mess up and have its own bloody Sunday, what happens when the first loyalist protesters are killed by a guard? You are missing the point that the unionists did not have a hunger to attack the Irish government, they had what they wanted! No hunger strikers! No bloody Sunday! No lack of civil/equal rights! The unionists considered themselves to have a defensive role. And again in the event of a UI the unionist campaign would be to destabilise the government and force an independent N.I.
You are just ignoring the point made. Unionism/Loyalism will have no credible goal bar belligerence and diehard stubborness and we have already seen that and it is not something that will threaten or destroy progress or should threaten it.
I cannot see either encouragement or support for that coming from mainstream Unionism which reality says (their behaviour in the last 20-25 year) has a pragmatic/ get on with it mindset.
Forcing an independent N.I. without the support of the British or indeed Europe and the Americans would be even more ludicrious than trying to bomb your way back into the affections of the British.
I get the point that nobody in the NI Ireland office and Unionism will want to bring this to a vote,(it would only be natural that Unionism is afraid of it) but SF's political survival depends on it and as they grow in power in the south I cannot see them turning their backs on it. Sooner or later it will be part of the price for entering a coalition government or they will grow enough to force the agenda. Time is all it requires.
Violence beckons either way here, so it would be irresponsible to just hope it will go away.
I said it before and I'll say again, Jim Molyneaux was right when he said, 'This is the worst thing that ever happened to us'.
Unionism got itself snookered, the orange ball is in behind the green ball.0 -
Having a credible goal isn't exactly the benchmark of terrorism in NI. Not one paramilitary organisation has seen their aims fulfilled. Why would you expect a different dynamic for any new 'campaign'?Happyman42 wrote: »You are just ignoring the point made. Unionism/Loyalism will have no credible goal bar belligerence and diehard stubborness and we have already seen that and it is not something that will threaten or destroy progress or should threaten it.
Well, that's a new pitch.Happyman42 wrote: »I cannot see either encouragement or support for that coming from mainstream Unionism which reality says (their behaviour in the last 20-25 year) has a pragmatic/ get on with it mindset.
Which of the previous campaigns of violence had any such support?Happyman42 wrote: »Forcing an independent N.I. without the support of the British or indeed Europe and the Americans would be even more ludicrious than trying to bomb your way back into the affections of the British.
You're missing the point entirely. The vote will happen as soon as there's any prospect of it having some merit. Everyone is clear at the moment that it doesn't stand any chance of doing anything but reaffirming the massive majority opposed to change. The day will come where that's not so clear, and there will be a referendum. At that point the majority of voters, with no ideological stake in the issue, will decide whether to break with the union or not. They will undoubtedly make a judgement call as to whether that would provoke a violent response. It's political outsiders will make the call, not SF, or nationalists, or unionists, or loyalists.Happyman42 wrote: »I get the point that nobody in the NI Ireland office and Unionism will want to bring this to a vote,(it would only be natural that Unionism is afraid of it) but SF's political survival depends on it and as they grow in power in the south I cannot see them turning their backs on it. Sooner or later it will be part of the price for entering a coalition government or they will grow enough to force the agenda. Time is all it requires.
It's the prospective scale of violence will be a key determinant for those floating voters, alongside the main issue - economic and social protection.Happyman42 wrote: »Violence beckons either way here, so it would be irresponsible to just hope it will go away.
Or quite possibly SF snookered itself with over-promising the prospects for a united Ireland in anything other than the long term?Happyman42 wrote: »I said it before and I'll say again, Jim Molyneaux was right when he said, 'This is the worst thing that ever happened to us'.
Unionism got itself snookered, the orange ball is in behind the green ball.0 -
There are two substantial points that make up your imagined 'parade of horribles'. One is the economic argument – a total deficit (never mind debt) of 24 billion. Per annum!!!! Do a quick calculation and see how much that works out at per private sector work on the island. You only need to be numerate, not economically numerate to see such a prospect would indeed be horrible but is far from a fallacy.Karl Stein wrote: »Even if we ignore the constant use of the 'parade of horribles' fallacy beloved of you and others …
Not anti-UI, anti-stupidity. And a UI any time in the foreseeable future would be stupid on a heroic scale. If circumstances change and a UI becomes a good idea I will change my mind.Karl Stein wrote: »because of your anti-UI mania …
First you assume loyalists would have a well thought out plan with means and ends. Tell me, what exactly was their end when the murdered random Catholics in the past?Karl Stein wrote: »it still doesn't answer the primary question 'to what ends would a murder campaign by so-called loyalists in opposition to the British and Irish be'?
Second, your comrade here Happyman argues “violence beckons either way here” so you would appear to be alone in your belief that this is a component in your 'parade of horribles'.
At the core of nationalism of any kind is irrationality. A substantial loyalists underclass could easily be persuaded that an independent NI would be better that a UI. Given what a ludicrous notion a UI would be, that might not necessarily be wrong!0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Forcing an independent N.I. without the support of the British or indeed Europe and the Americans would be even more ludicrious than trying to bomb your way back into the affections of the British.
Have you told the Basque separatist movement this?
Or the Scottish or Catalan independence movements?
This thread presents plenty of examples of when nationalism or independence movements are involved, rational and logical thinking goes out the window and wishful dreamy romanticism takes over.Happyman42 wrote: »I get the point that nobody in the NI Ireland office and Unionism will want to bring this to a vote,(it would only be natural that Unionism is afraid of it) but SF's political survival depends on it and as they grow in power in the south I cannot see them turning their backs on it. Sooner or later it will be part of the price for entering a coalition government or they will grow enough to force the agenda. Time is all it requires.
Time, do you mean 50 years? If so, we are in agreement.Happyman42 wrote: »Violence beckons either way here, so it would be irresponsible to just hope it will go away.
I said it before and I'll say again, Jim Molyneaux was right when he said, 'This is the worst thing that ever happened to us'.
Unionism got itself snookered, the orange ball is in behind the green ball.
Violence beckons if we move from the current status quo, again we are agreed.0 -
Karl Stein wrote: »Oh I know they were able to kill people (primarily Catholic civilians) it's just that I, among many, simply don't believe they were capable without outside expertise of carrying out the D&M bombings.
.
The logistics of carrying out a bombing 40 years ago are irrelevant to the logistics of doing so today.
40 years ago, no Muslim terrorist group was capable of 9/11 or the Tube bombings. The IRA weren't capable of it either, neither were loyalists, no matter how much assistance and collusion they could have got.
The argument that because loyalists terrorists couldn't do something 40 years ago means they are not capable of it tomorrow is the ultimate example of how nationalists are ignorantly living in the past.0 -
Having a credible goal isn't exactly the benchmark of terrorism in NI. Not one paramilitary organisation has seen their aims fulfilled. Why would you expect a different dynamic for any new 'campaign'?
That is a matter of dispute, and is just your opinion. Insurrection has forced the withdrawal of foreign forces before, to have the self belief that you can force that withdrawal is credible.
You are confusing your personal opinion on the possibility of doing it with the fact the fact that the IRA clearly believed they could do it. And you are ignoring the fact that the British most certainly considered withdrawal in the face of the campaign.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/30/thatcher-cabinet-hunger-strike-national-archives
"further thought would need to be given to all possible courses of action in regard to Northern Ireland, however difficult or unpalatable". Margaret Thatcher.
Merlyn Rees also certainly considered it and influential media in Britain has advocated it from time to time.
Look at opinion polls too from 1969 and it i clear that opinion in Britain favoured a withdrawal.
IRA leaders have also often cited Aden as an example of what could be achieved, the British withdrew from there in 1967.
On the other hand forcing your way back into a 'union'?...where has that been done, what support would it have among the British public never mind the political class? It's a Unionist 'Lassie Come Home' fantasy.
Neither could forcing a majority into an independent state be looked on as feasible, that i a recipe for all out civil war and would be suicidal for a what n essence would be a Unionist minority.
You are quite simply wrong here.Well, that's a new pitch.
Hardly, it has been said for a number of pages now.
Irish nationalism has always had the upperhand in terms of support in America, both in government and among the public.Which of the previous campaigns of violence had any such support?You're missing the point entirely. The vote will happen as soon as there's any prospect of it having some merit. Everyone is clear at the moment that it doesn't stand any chance of doing anything but reaffirming the massive majority opposed to change. The day will come where that's not so clear, and there will be a referendum. At that point the majority of voters, with no ideological stake in the issue, will decide whether to break with the union or not. They will undoubtedly make a judgement call as to whether that would provoke a violent response. It's political outsiders will make the call, not SF, or nationalists, or unionists, or loyalists.
And you are missing the point about the responsibilities of power.
And what you are ignoring again is that there is the prospect of renewed violence no matter which path is chosen.It's the prospective scale of violence will be a key determinant for those floating voters, alongside the main issue - economic and social protection.
The decision has to be based on which path represents the best option to end violence for good.
The cause of violence in Ireland has always been the presence of the Britissh...go figure what the answer is.Or quite possibly SF snookered itself with over-promising the prospects for a united Ireland in anything other than the long term?
The prospect of a United Ireland is very much still on the agenda. Unionists can run but cannot hide from that.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »That is a matter of dispute, and is just your opinion. Insurrection has forced the withdrawal of foreign forces before, to have the self belief that you can force that withdrawal is credible.
You are confusing your personal opinion on the possibility of doing it with the fact the fact that the IRA clearly believed they could do it. .
And you are confusing your personal opinion on the possibility of a united Ireland falling apart with the fact that a future unionist terrorist organisation would believe it could do it.
Really, one rule for the IRA, a different rule for other terrorist organisations.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »And what you are ignoring again is that there is the prospect of renewed violence no matter which path is chosen.
The decision has to be based on which path represents the best option to end violence for good.
Yes, most rational people accept that there is the prospect of renewed violence no matter which direction right or left we travel from here. But we are at a crossroads, there is a road straight ahead which continues with the current status quo but builds understanding North and South so that in the long-term (50-100 years) a united Ireland becomes a possibility.0 -
And you are confusing your personal opinion on the possibility of a united Ireland falling apart with the fact that a future unionist terrorist organisation would believe it could do it.
Really, one rule for the IRA, a different rule for other terrorist organisations.
If a referendum takes place (which it has to, sooner or later) it will be with the blessing of Unionists, who will have accepted the possibility of losing it, any violent reaction to the result will be from an isolated rump (that still exists, granted) of belligerents.
There will be no credibility in Unionists en masse joining them. And certainly not after having listened to their moralising for the last 40 years.
The snooker will still be in play. And I, for one cannot see a way out of it for them, only making the best of it and contributing to the new arrangement.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »If a referendum takes place (which it has to, sooner or later) it will be with the blessing of Unionists, who will have accepted the possibility of losing it, any violent reaction to the result will be from an isolated rump (that still exists, granted) of belligerents.
There will be no credibility in Unionists en masse joining them. And certainly not after having listened to their moralising for the last 40 years.
The snooker will still be in play. And I, for one cannot see a way out of it for them, only making the best of it and contributing to the new arrangement.
Again - you're presenting unionism as some sort of homogenous bloc. Loyalist paramilitarism hasn't been aligned with mainstream unionist party politics for anything but a fleeting period, a long time ago. Paramilitary activity has always sprung from a belligerent minority. Did nationalist en masse support the IRA, or did they vote for constitutional politics year after year? Did that stop the IRA's campaign of violence? How many in that isolated rump - the RIRA were required to kill 29 people in Omagh? Do you honestly believe that there's not a potential for greater numbers of discontented and belligerent loyalists compared to the RIRA base? Mainstream Unionism isn't going to be the determinant of a break from union - it's not their, or republican's game of 'snooker' - it's the non-ideologically inclined voters of NI.0 -
Advertisement
-
Happyman42 wrote: »If a referendum takes place (which it has to, sooner or later) it will be with the blessing of Unionists, who will have accepted the possibility of losing it, any violent reaction to the result will be from an isolated rump (that still exists, granted) of belligerents.
There will be no credibility in Unionists en masse joining them. And certainly not after having listened to their moralising for the last 40 years.
The snooker will still be in play. And I, for one cannot see a way out of it for them, only making the best of it and contributing to the new arrangement.
Well, I am glad to see that you have finally accepted that a referendum may not take place for many years. You have also accepted that Unionists will have to be persuaded to the possibility of a united Ireland.
Now perhaps you might consider how you might persuade (rather than bully or intimidate) Unionists into accepting the possibility of a united Ireland. Otherwise we will be back into my timeframe of 50-100 years.0 -
Once the numbers in traditionally CNR communities tip over 50% of the population there will be legitimate calls for a border poll and the sec of state would need a good excuse for not holding one. To not do so would be overtly anti democratic.Well, I am glad to see that you have finally accepted that a referendum may not take place for many years. You have also accepted that Unionists will have to be persuaded to the possibility of a united Ireland.
Now perhaps you might consider how you might persuade (rather than bully or intimidate) Unionists into accepting the possibility of a united Ireland. Otherwise we will be back into my timeframe of 50-100 years.0 -
R P McMurphy wrote: »Once the numbers in traditionally CNR communities tip over 50% of the population there will be legitimate calls for a border poll and the sec of state would need a good excuse for not holding one. To not do so would be overtly anti democratic.
I don't get why the C Is with the N&R? Certainly Nationalists and Republicans by there very name would hold aspirations for a U.I but why would catholics hope to be ruled by the corrupt Dublin government by default? The question is when will the nationalist and Republican communities reach 50% of the population?0 -
R P McMurphy wrote: »Once the numbers in traditionally CNR communities tip over 50% of the population there will be legitimate calls for a border poll and the sec of state would need a good excuse for not holding one. To not do so would be overtly anti democratic.
There may not be such calls because the nationalist politicians will be still flummoxed by the paltry level of support for a united Ireland in the short-term. No matter how high the nationalist population goes, economics means that the % who favour an immediate united Ireland will not rise above 20% this side of 2030.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »That is a matter of dispute, and is just your opinion.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. None of the NI paramilitary groups achieved their stated aims. That's a record of 100% failure.0 -
I don't get why the C Is with the N&R? Certainly Nationalists and Republicans by there very name would hold aspirations for a U.I but why would catholics hope to be ruled by the corrupt Dublin government by default? The question is when will the nationalist and Republican communities reach 50% of the population?
The reason the c is in there is the same reason the p is in the pul. Certainly being a member of the catholic community does not mean someone would vote for a ui but would indicate they wptuld vote for nationalist parties. I dont know mny Catholics tht vote for unionist parties, in fact I would hazard guess and say none. When the majority are voting for nationalist parties then a border poll becomes inevitable. I know you are scared of such a poll but if you are convinced one would fail then why the concern0 -
R P McMurphy wrote: »The reason the c is in there is the same reason the p is in the pul. Certainly being a member of the catholic community does not mean someone would vote for a ui but would indicate they wptuld vote for nationalist parties. I dont know mny Catholics tht vote for unionist parties, in fact I would hazard guess and say none. When the majority are voting for nationalist parties then a border poll becomes inevitable. I know you are scared of such a poll but if you are convinced one would fail then why the concern
Hmm
0 -
-
R P McMurphy wrote: »Yes?
Your point?
It rather puts the implication that the 'CNR communities' are any real useful indicator of the potential for a vote against the union. 36% of Alliance voters are Catholic, so while there might not be a significant number of Catholics voting for unionist parties (I'm sure there's some in the 1% of non-Protestant supporters), it's not a given that they will vote for nationalist parties - many vote for no parties at all, and are unlikely to factor their religion into a sovereignty referendum.0 -
Advertisement
-
It rather puts the implication that the 'CNR communities' are any real useful indicator of the potential for a vote against the union. 36% of Alliance voters are Catholic, so while there might not be a significant number of Catholics voting for unionist parties (I'm sure there's some in the 1% of non-Protestant supporters), it's not a given that they will vote for nationalist parties - many vote for no parties at all, and are unlikely to factor their religion into a sovereignty referendum.
Well that is all well and good but who was making the point that catholics would vote for a united ireland?0
Advertisement