downcow wrote: » I am simply asking you why you think Ulster Scots decides they wanted to stay with uk? Don’t say nonsense when I simply asked a question
Fr D Maugire wrote: » Because they didn't want to live in a society in which Catholics had parity and were aware of how poorly Catholics had been treated by Britain/Unionism since the 17th Century and were likely fearful of a backlash. So that is your question answered. Now why would Presbyterians or other religions be opposed to Home Rule even though it meant staying within the UK?
downcow wrote: » Ulster Scots were treated worse than Catholics so why would they have expected a backlash. I reckon at that time the feared the link between a vicious abusive Catholic Church and the new government. Our people would have been abused not just because they were children but also because they were non catholic. If you guys had stayed in the uk then there would have been a lot less child abuse. Of course it would still happen becusowhere there is power there is abuse but it would have been much less
Ozymandius2011 wrote: » It was generally Catholics who were sent to the Catholic run homes. I would point out in Northern Ireland, there was the Kincora children's home, which successive British governments have refused to investigate but where Cyril Smith and many British Establishment and loyalist figures are alleged to have abused children. Many Protestants were sent there, and it seems part of the motive may have been for British intelligence to control senior Loyalist figures through blackmail. Village Magazine had a detailed article on this recently. Lord David Steele has recently admitted he knew of allegations against former Liberal MP Cyril Smith.
downcow wrote: » Don’t disagree with any of that. Is your point that there was not massively more child abuse in Ireland than uk? And child abuse is only one form of the abuse going on
Ozymandius2011 wrote: » That would probably be my argument.There was also Jimmy Saville.
Fr D Maugire wrote: » Yeah, I can see why most people do not want to engage in discussion if this is the level of nonsense you come out. Trying too retcon abuses that have only come to light in the last 30/40 years as to why Protestants wanted stay in the UK almost 150 years ago is pure BS. Nowhere have I ever seen it suggested this as a reason for wanting to stay in the UK. Think I am done with your bS.
Solutionking wrote: » In other words you didn't like the answer so you are moving on People go on as if that joining the republic is a dream for all of the North. Far from it. We have a bad government with a incompetent opposition. I know NI is terrible as well but at least they can look to the UK for help. We are still very tied to a religious organization which abused children for years. We have no money and will have even less if we have to pay for a united Ireland We have a huge percentage of wasters in Ireland, who won't and never will work. We have a long term issue with older people which we cannot afford as the population gets older, this issue will incease with a bigger population We have massive issues with racism which is burried under the carpet. Just have a look over this forum and you see daily racism towards anyone that isn't Irish, white and catholic. Our whole public sector is a disaster, which is not improving instead it is going the opposite. The Irish people themselves have turned lazy, no longer the friendly neighbour and the land of thousands welcomes has been replaced with gangs etc. Even politician sons beating up tourists and our court systems let them off. Even if I was catholic or whatever religion in the North, yes SF and DUP are a disaster I would be looking at the sh*t storm down here. And how bad will it get if SF are put into government in the Rep? expect US corporations leaving enmasse etc.
downcow wrote: » You are missing the whole point of my post. I was demonstrating the oppressive controlling nature of a church run state and that was very clear to the Ulster Scots of the time. It was inevitable they would have been isolated and abused (and I don’t mean sexually). So why would they not go with the UK. It was a no brainier
FrancieBrady wrote: » The church was 'running the state' before independence and partition??? Interesting grasp of history there.
downcow wrote: » No idea what you are talking about? If you are just putting up a random post then you prob shouldn’t quote me
‘We are expressing the opinion of all Southern Unionists and, we believe, the bulk of Nationalists and Ulster Unionists, when we invite the leaders of both political parties to call an instant halt to a hasty and ill-advised policy which is leading our country straight for disaster.’ The proposals will ‘set up in Ireland an utterly artificial system of government under partition which will stereotype existing political divisions, and stifle political and economic progress in our country for generations to come’.
saabsaab wrote: » I don't think you are right we are not so much attached to the RC church anymore look at the abortion referendum result. We have access to money and there would be more available from the EU to pay for a united Ireland. As a percentage the aging population would be the same, in comparison with the EU we have a lot of younger people. We are no more racist than any other nation and I’ve never encountered a problem with religion. Our public sector is not too bad look at how it has handled the corona crisis. As for SF have corporations left en masse in the north? No.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I am talking about the hindsight you are using here to invent a stance for Unionists. It's rubbish as there was no 'church led state' for them to observe and their primary concern about partition was that it be 6 counties not 9 because they felt that Catholics would 'out breed' them in 9. They abandoned 70,000 Protestants to their fate in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. Southern Unionists who were so well aware of what partition would cause that they had warned publicly about it in the Church of Ireland Gazette.
downcow wrote: » I am agreeing with everything you are saying, except your claim that unionists could see the oppressive RC state coming. I thought you would agree that the control of RC church was wrong. I thought we’d be on the same page on that. What was the cry of ‘home rule is Rome rule’ if unionists weren’t fearing the RC Church - and they were proved correct
downcow wrote: » I completely agree with solutionking that Roi has major racism problems. Ni is exactly the same. We have not been exposed to multi race like England, France, etc. I saw a survey recently where those who score themselves most anti-racist when tested turn out to be most racist. I completely get it. I recognise my racism but many think they are squeaky clean
FrancieBrady wrote: » Home Rule is Rome Rule had nothing to do with perceiving that the church would abuse children downcow. They didn't want Rome dictating to them on relgious matters, was the fear. You are using hindsight to invent that stance. And you still haven't addressed the fact that they abandoned 70,000 of their own brethren to 'Rome Rule' in favour of a statelet they could oppress inthemselves...and did.
downcow wrote: » Francie unlike you I don’t try to peddle a one sided story. I never suggested they thought their kids would be abused. Show me where I said such a ridiculous thing?
downcow wrote: Ulster Scots were treated worse than Catholics so why would they have expected a backlash. I reckon at that time the feared the link between a vicious abusive Catholic Church and the new government. Our people would have been abused not just because they were children but also because they were non catholic. If you guys had stayed in the uk then there would have been a lot less child abuse. Of course it would still happen becusowhere there is power there is abuse but it would have been much less
My fathers family made up some of the 70,009 so I know the pain of that. With hindsight it was a pragmatic decision. Not what anyone would have wanted to do but understandable
downcow wrote: » Francie unlike you I don’t try to peddle a one sided story. I never suggested they thought their kids would be abused. Show me where I said such a ridiculous thing? My fathers family made up some of the 70,009 so I know the pain of that. With hindsight it was a pragmatic decision. Not what anyone would have wanted to do but understandable
Sinbad_NI wrote: » Aye, my family as well. They didn’t leave the south because they wanted to however. They left because of violence against them. Who’d have guessed in Utopia eh.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » You lost your position and privilege and decided to move to a place were it still existed. Boo hoo.
Sinbad_NI wrote: » Driven out. They didn’t want to leave... they did want to live.
Sinbad_NI wrote: » What’s wrong, don’t you like the truth?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
