Northern Ireland 2125?

As I said, that is an opinion, not mine by the way, but not unreasonable when you think about it.

It is unreasonable. The Troubles was rooted in a demand for civil rights, equality and constitutional reform.

It was a fact that the border campaign by the IRA 1956 -62 saw 6 RUC constables killed, and 32 wounded. There were 8 IRA men killed, and 4 republican civilians killed. There was also a lot of property destroyed by the IRA then. If the IRA did not mount those unprovoked attacks, or the IRA attacks during the 1940s etc, community relations going both ways may have been a lot better.

The community relations suffered more due to continued civil rights, equality and state sanctioned terrorism. Violence begets violence. Those who sought peaceful means were overshadowed by the easy appeal of violent retribution on both sides.

A bit like if you fall out with your neighbour, things can get nasty. Not all the fault was on one side.

If I am permitted by the police for to violently attack my neighbour as they walk down the road in protest against denial of equality then that is when things get nasty. If the governing agencies then heed the sectarianism of one side only and use them as part of their war chest then 'things can get nasty'. Violent response to violence was an easier option than those who spoke of peace. Those in power knew this and failed to quell any tensions.

To portray it as a neighbourly falling out is a delusion I won't entertain.

Could you elaborate on what inequalites in a UI would cause a rise in para-militaries or would there be no practical reasons, more that a UI just goes against somes ideology and that is the reason.

If it is the latter i would imagine those would have no support and quite frankly be thick as mud and not be very hard to be taken out.

Were the hundreds of unprovoked IRA attacks during the border campaign 1956 -62 , or the IRA attacks in the 1940s, about civil rights?

No, not in my opinion. There may have been some attempts to link it to what was going on after the fact; but it was primarily an IRA run against what they perceived as occupation.

Poor working class protestants in Belfast had the same rights as poor working class catholics, no more, no less.

That is not correct. The "working' element was entirely a different experience. The Belfast pogroms and riots of the 20's were followed with continued division of jobs - Protestant labour was for shipbuilding and heavy engineering. Crucially, Protestants were the gate keepers of Government, public sector and policing. Catholic labour was lower skilled, lower paid and generally seasonal/unsecure.

Like neighbours who fall out, a lot of history and bad blood unfortunately.

No, I'm still not buying in to you simple "neighbours falling out" wish to summarise the Troubles. The institutional, state led sectarianism cannot be simply omitted from your summary.

Everyone, both sides can go back eg Portadown 1641, when O'Neill clansmen massacred as many as 100 English and Scottish Protestants, including women, children, and other noncombatants. The massacre took place on the banks of the River Bann.

You really think going back to 1641 will demonstrate some sort of justification for the conditions in Northern Ireland?

No side completely blameless. I think anyone who thinks only one side to blame 100% is a bigot.

Yet you don't address those with patently obvious 'one side only' views..

The old Stormont regime was abolished in 1972 though which the Irish government & the SDLP welcomed. Big House Unionism reeled from this blow. Do you think there might have been a chance for peace at this time if for example the IRA threw in a curveball of declaring a ceasefire?

The atrocities of '71 & '72 and what went before it meant that the communities wouldn't have magically 'healed' overnight.. The touch paper had been lit for all sides. Thereafter Sunningdale was doomed from the outset; too many using violence on both sides saw that as the solution despite efforts to make the governance a more balanced approach. Violence was the go to for 20+ years thereafter.

It's notable though you don't pose the same question of the state and/or loyalist paramilitaries throwing the same curveball…

Of course the states military and armed policing couldn't call a cease fire as easily as the IRA perhaps, but why again is it simply up to one side to throw in the towel with no guarantees for what would come next for the nationalist population? An armed loyalist militia accompanied by a sectarian police and military would simply have seen an opportunity to clean house.

The threat of loyalist revolt was something they had to consider if they simply pulled out the military; re-establishing a military foothold would've been a massive undertaking and a PR disaster at the very least. Operation Doomsday was touted; the UK effectively ditching NI and it would have become a dominion with NI losing funding within 5 years. Had the ROI been simply handed this to manage would have created a colossal mess; complete societal breakdown was a serious concern.

Successive governments used it as the proverbial political football which meant that the political will to do the right thing wasn't there; until that was in place, violence was always guaranteed.

But why would it be seen as “throwing in the towel though”?

From the perspective of (a) getting Britain out by force (which I think they copped by the 80's anyway) and (b) (if the IRA suddenly vanished) the potential for loyalist terrorist groups and sectarian policing to escalate their campaign against the nationalist community. Paramilitary life evolved in to a pseudo career/identity; those who now had power and influence through violence weren't keen to simply give it up.

Napoleons old observation about “do nothing when your enemy is making mistakes” could come into play here. The IRA declaring a ceasefire at this time is not ‘quitting’ IMO but rather following a different strategy and see what happens.

The violence and tensions were clouded by the years the went before them. It's easy now to ask with hindsight. Why would they call a cease fire on a Monday when the state policing was as oppressively sectarian on the Tuesday with no guarantee as to what the future held? Why would a Protestant dominated government suddenly without the prospect of Westminster managing them suddenly become the arbiters of equality?

Not following you here. I’m talking about Stormont being gone and Westminster stepping in instead??

The governing bodies, policing and military leadership were not replaced in whole by Westminster. There was a sectarian police force steeped in collusion with the loyalist paramilitary groups. With the best political will in the world there would not have been a regime change overnight.

There was a nationalist population that was deeply mistrusting of those in power; Westminster sent in the army a few years earlier; that was now soured considerably. The provos had also just split in a few years prior; they're violence wasn't going to be quelled so suddenly. The provos had also just split in a few years prior; they're violence wasn't going to be quelled so suddenly.

As i said already the Southern government & the SDLP welcomed Stormonts fall. Its possible international pressure (USA etc) could have been brought to bear to push for a solution. Would have saved a helluva lot of lives if somehow things worked out.

Had it worked out yes; but only the ROI & SDLP welcoming Stormont's fall; there was no such celebrations from the Unionists. Even with US/outside help, The Unionists simlply could not swallow Dublin input being legitimised. Sunningdale for slow learners took nearly another 30 years to be accepted and even then, a significant party still did not. If they didn't see the benefits of the GFA 30 odd years (with all its violence) after Stormonts fall; what hope could you have had that they would have acted differently in the early 70's?

I am not 'open' to the continuation of a failed statelet within Ireland.

Do you seriously believe that a statelet that has proven it cannot work over and over again will be given a pat on the head and continue?

What makes you think the Unionist political class, which has refused point blank to normalise the place since 1998, sign up to the GFA itself, flegs, parades, give rights everyone else on these islands has, language rights, parades, is going to change?

If a Border Poll is successful, the clue is in the name - the 'Border' goes.

What would a normal N.I. look to you?

1. Would not require an international agreement between two sovereign entities just to function.
2. Would not require mandatory coalition
3. Would not require a Petition of Concern and if it did would not allow it to be abused.
4. Would not require a Parades Commission.
5. Would have normal rules regarding flag flying, the same as they are in other parts of whatever jurisdiction it is in.
6. Would have the same Language Rights as elsewhere in the jurisdiction.
7. Social rights would not be dictated by the religious views of political parties, church and state separated.
8. If a majority agree on something like Language Rights or Flags or Parades etc then that is immediately implemented like it would be in any normal democracy.

Plenty more but you get the idea.

Yes there are criticisms of everyone in there, but I asked @downcow how was he going to convince that Unionism would change it's spots in his vision for the future. Republican/Nationalists are not, as far as I know, looking to re-establish this system of governing themselves.

I'd say getting shot off the streets was another factor in derailing the civil rights movement, Blanch. It's pretty hard to take idealistic talk of, 'a path to a peaceful future' seriously against the backdrop of State forces shooting civil rights marchers and actively covering it up.

Wouldn't fit well with, 'Blanch's Big Book of How Everything was the Provos' I suppose.

Certainly, that aspect cannot be argued. The violence gave people agency and they weren’t going to give it up easy and settle in to a ‘normal’ life.

There were other elements that stood in the way of peace but the PIRA knew by the late 70’s their ‘cause’ wasn’t on the horizon, but you had groups who gained status from paramilitary life.

And the violence carried out to uphold the sectarian bigoted state, the violence carried out by the RUC, B-Specials The UDR and paramilitary unionist/loyalists factions was carried out in the name of Unionism/Loyalism and the British.