jm08 wrote: » From the circular I linked from the NI Policing Board.“This is to inform you there will be no increase in the contribution rate to your pension for the period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2019. The contribution rate will depend on which scheme you are in (1988 scheme or 2006 scheme), and on your basic annual salary. This is set out in the table below.Your employer will pay an increased rate of 25.1% on your behalf.” You are making a lot of assumptions here. The difference is that if that was a Private Company, they would have to put the 25.1% in a separate account for their employee. Since its a British Government undertaking, they don't have to hand the cash over to a separate pension trust.
jm08 wrote: » Ah here now. I was thinking more in the last 600 or 700 years, not a couple of 1000 years ago! And while we may have common D&A with the Welsh and Scots (Celts), I don't think we shared much D&N with the Anglo-Saxons.
blanch152 wrote: » Yes, I saw that, and went back to the full document to explain to you what it meant.
jm08 wrote: » If it is as you claim it is, why did the British Government accept its EU pension liability without a protest?
blanch152 wrote: » Here is an interesting alternate view on that:https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/celts-ireland-4199945-Aug2018/ And another:https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html What unites us may be bigger than what divides us.
blanch152 wrote: » https://owlcation.com/stem/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity "Today, people living the north of Spain in the region known as the Basque Country share many DNA traits with the Irish. However, the Irish also share their DNA to a large extent with the people of Britain, especially the Scottish and Welsh." "However, more recent studies confirm that when a complex picture is taken of Irish DNA, including both male and female lines of descent, the closest similarities are between the Irish and people living in Western Britain."One of the biggest arguments against nationalism as an ideology is that there really is no national identity any more.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Have you told the Unionists this? People in certain geographical regions share DNA, so what? Where many go wrong on this is the idea that nationalism is defined and stuck in time or from one pure gene pool, if there ever was such a nonsense. National identity is ever evolving and personal. The British royals are of German decent yet quintessentially 'English'. FYI: the majority of people in Northern Ireland would have more Irish DNA than anything else, so now what? Silly argument.
jm08 wrote: » Those who have British ancestry benefited at a cost to the indigenous people of Ireland.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Clearly the poster didn't think through the full implication of what he was saying. It is just more of the need to diminish anything Irish as something inferior. Our desire to be an all island state, our language, now it is our identity itself.
oscarBravo wrote: » I'd love you to explain how having an English grandmother benefited me, what the cost to the indigenous people was, and where the hell you get off telling me I'm not indigenous.
jm08 wrote: » I'd need to know when your grandmother was born and whether she is part of the British governing classes.
Matt Barrett wrote: » FYI: the majority of people in Northern Ireland would have more Irish DNA than anything else, so now what? Silly argument.
downcow wrote: » Segarox, to get back to your original question which was certainly not the same old same old "what if the north was to vote to rejoin ireland but in name only; establish yourselves as a separate state with your own government, your own police force (technically you have that already; Stormont and the PSNI) and your own currency. could have the benefits of staying in the EU and not have the unpleasant taste of irish in your mouths. or am i talking rubbish? please, i'd to hear what you have to say" I as a unionist could seriously consider an option like this. Remember I am Northern Irish, so Irish is not a bad taste to me. NI means far more to me than UK. Yes I enjoy being part of the UK and feel when i am on the mainland that i am among my friends / country people. Yes I feel different in the ROI but 20 years on from the troubles the old antagonism has gone. I enjoy visiting ROI and feel they are good neighbours getting better all the time (Brexit stuff hasn't helped but hopefully thats a blip). I can't see what Irish republicans would get from your suggestion though - i don't think they'd be too happy. I don't think their new ireland has any genuine regard for my people. I appreciate the positive nature of your question
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why would you expect an 'Irish Republican' to be happy with that? An Irish republican wants an Irish republic. If northern Ireland cannot survive with a reputed 9-10-11-12 Billion subvention, how would it expect to survive as independent? It cannot govern itself because of the absurd divisions partition caused, surely the last 100 years have proved that.
downcow wrote: » Yeah my thoughts exactly Francie - Can't see how a republican would be happy with that. Your point about subvention is also fair but maybe that subvention could continue after NI independence but not grow with inflation so UK and NI are winners. Unfortunately the divisions are difficult but I think we can work with them (100 years of learning) but dump us into an ROI and those divisions will be stared up all sorts of ways and no doubt another 100 years for us to all learn ho to deal with them. What you think?
downcow wrote: » Now where is your evidence for this?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The emphasis for me is fixing the ongoing effects of an absurd partition. The only way to do that imo is to remove the cause (partition). Your people had their chance to build a state and frankly it abjectly failed. I don't believe for a second there would be a hostile environment in a unified Ireland for any political persuasion. If you are fit to fight your corner there would be parity of opportunity and esteem.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I would put a lot of weight in the majority of people geographically located in an area, being from that area DNA wise. Unless they all moved over? I know some came from Scotland, but how far back are we going with this ruse, Viking era? Partition is the anomaly here. it's in the name, Northern Ireland.
downcow wrote: » Francie, we have naval gazed in NI for years over what we got wrong. There was gerry mandering, catholics were discriminated against, and the security forces in very tricky sensitive situations got some stuff wrong and yes, people died. The Catholic population though grew from about 30% to near 50% On the other hand in ROI Protestants were discriminated against and the population dropped from 10% to 3% Would you say that was success in building an ROI? What does this evidence tell you. Who were the least accommodating of difference? and would it be different in a UI?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are not looking at a RC dominated country anymore. I know of very few instances were Protestants were discriminated against, my wife is one and sees no affinity with that view. I know of countless cases were Catholics were in the north, and it is the main reason that entity eventually failed. I am of no religion and feel a fully fledged citizen of a modern European country. There are still many people in the north who cannot say that because basic rights enjoyed by all the people of these islands are denied them.
downcow wrote: » My father was part of a family of 11 living in donegal. He had to go to a catholic school and had Irish hammered into him. He want to serve his community by joining the guards but couldn't as he had no Irish exams. All 11 moved north (or rather west). It was the only way they could have a future. There must now be 100+ decendants of his brothers and sisters all living in the North but all having a deep regard for their roots in Donegal (and indeed scotland before that) He loved Donegal but hated the discrimination against his community. He died loving Donegal with a Donegal song played at his funeral. So don't suggest protestants were welcome in the South (unless of course they agreed to accept the majority culture) This is the challenge for any new ireland
downcow wrote: » My father was part of a family of 11 living in donegal. He had to go to a catholic school and had Irish hammered into him. He want to serve his community by joining the guards but couldn't as he had no Irish exams.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I had Irish hammered into me in the 70's and 80's. I think most Irish people of all creeds would have that memory. I couldn't join the Gardai either, had I wanted to. We have had Protestant Taoisaigh, Presidents, and literary giants. Protestants have gotten to the top of our biggest sporting organisation. They are fully accepted and integrated in our society.
Perifect wrote: » Protestants were very welcome in the south. They have and still get on very well here. Some of them got some very high level jobs. The Irish language is an Irish protestant language as well. Many used it and many still do. The protestant population fell in the south post partition but a large section of that was British military and public servants going back to Britain. It's time to end the myth that we are very different people with little in common. Irish people, be they of any religion or from any region, have huge similarities. The only tangible difference between someone from Mayo, Antrim, Kerry or Wexford is their accents. We have little in common with those from Britain in comparison. There's no reason why we can't all get on and work together as one. It makes sense and it would work.
downcow wrote: » Thanks for the reply but I am at a loss where to start with it. You talk about myths and then suggest the massive decline in the Protestant population was mainly due to military returning to mainland. Did you read my post? The north has huge numbers of people who left the south due to discrimination. I absolutely accept that nationalists up here have loads in common with southerners. But as a unionist I feel I have much more in common with Scots etc that I do with southerners.
downcow wrote: » Francie, we have naval gazed in NI for years over what we got wrong. There was gerry mandering, catholics were discriminated against, and the security forces in very tricky sensitive situations got some stuff wrong and yes, people died. The Catholic population though grew from about 30% to near 50%On the other hand in ROI Protestants were discriminated against and the population dropped from 10% to 3% Would you say that was success in building an ROI? What does this evidence tell you. Who were the least accommodating of difference? and would it be different in a UI?
downcow wrote: » On the other hand in ROI Protestants were discriminated against and the population dropped from 10% to 3% Would you say that was success in building an ROI?
Perifect wrote: » No, I said a large number of military personnel and public servants moved back to Britain. This discrimination you speak of was a very small number. The main reasons for the population fall were the reasons I've stated above plus the large number of protestants who went to fight in World War 1. Also, James Craig offered protestants government jobs and housing if they moved north. As I said, it's a myth you are perpetuating. I am friends with many northern protestants. We have far more in common than anyone from Britain.
