How many of us think that unification is no longer a priority and don't really want unification ?

I quoted the FF manifesto to you, did you not read it??? Here it is in black and white again:

"Ensure that discussions on a
referendum on unity are not allowed
to get in the way of the essential
work of building the understanding
and reconciliation without which the
fundamental causes of conflict and
division cannot be addressed."

That is why the Government refuses to go down the Sinn Fein rabbit hole of discussing a plan for a united Ireland. The time is far from right from that.

I should take a lesson from them and not go down your endless diversionary and ridiculous rabbit holes.

The responsibility is on those who want a border poll to step up to the plate and tell us what they are proposing. To date, they are standing idly by.

They are getting in the way, we haven't heard a single thing from Sinn Fein except a monotonous bleat that the Government should plan for a border poll, zilch about Shared Island, zilch about reconciliation, etc. So in shouting down the SF demands, FF are sticking to their manifesto.

Which "belligerents" are ignoring the Shared Island Initiative? Are you talking about Sinn Fein who continue to consistently ignore it? Or are you talking about Unionists?

In either case, I am sure you will be able to point me to their organised boycotts against projects like the support for the Ulster Scots language? Maybe they are boycotting the train service? Is there a proposal to ignore the Narrow Water Bridge and travel the long way around? What about the All-Ireland Pollinator Project? Are their proposals to get the farmers to ignore this?

This is the thing you don't understand about the Shared Island Initiative. It is getting down on the ground and making a real difference to people's lives, while the belligerent representatives on both sides (and their social media representatives) can engage in their respective sectarian rhetoric, while the real work of reconciliation continues where it matters, on the ground, with real people.

I quite clearly said that the "belligerent representatives on both sides (and their social media representatives) can engage in their respective sectarian rhetoric, while the real work of reconciliation continues where it matters, on the ground, with real people".

Your response only outlines what you claim those belligerent representatives on both sides are saying, and ignores the fact that ordinary unionists will be using the one-hour train to Dublin, the Narrow Water Bridge, the unionist farmers will be engaged in All-Ireland projects, any of which do more for reconciliation than the combined utterings of SF politicians for the last 20 years.

"Useful" they say, hardly a ringing endorsement. I've no time for the rhetoric, for the posturing, for the performative politics of any of those who call for a border poll, I do have time for the work being done on the ground through the Shared Island Initiative.

That is the most bizarre response I have ever seen.

"You attitude shows you are unfit to be involved in a shared island because you try to exclude by misrepresenting people."

Did you even read that sentence as you typed it? You say that I should be excluded because I try to exclude!!! Bare-faced hypocrisy in one sentence.

The whole purpose of the Shared Island Initiative is to include people on the ground, which I have demonstrated that it is doing, build a norm of including ordinary people.

Those who shout from the rooftops about "belligerents" on the other side, without recognising there are "belligerents" on both sides are a problem, the behaviour of politicians of the DUP and SF on a daily basis in Northern Ireland are a problem, the Shared Island Initiative gets around all of that stupidity by getting ordinary people involved in ordinary activity every day.

You still haven't been able to point to a single example of unionists boycotting the Narrow Water Bridge or the trains to Dublin.

Lots of things I don't support are useful. If you want to try and paint SF as messiahs for the Shared Island Initiative, please do so, it would be amusing at least.

Pointless engaging any further down this rabbithole.

I am sorry, but attending a launch and stating that the SII is "useful" is as close to doing zilch to promote and deliver the SII as it is possible to be without being completely rude and ignorant. So if you want me to concede that SF have not rubbished the SII, yes, but they have done zilch to promote it and support it. Nothing new there.

It is not massively important to me any more, but I would vote YES should a referendum be called.

However, when I read columns on the subject asking for some consideration of the Unionist perspective, I often wonder, if it was just a straight forward yes to unification with no concessions for unionists would you vote NO?

But if a new flag and anthem was not on the table what how would you vote.

Let face it as you say "As long as those concessions don't infringe on anyone else's right, no big issue making them." and by that keeping the flag and anthem does infringe on anyone's rights, no big issue keeping them.

So we have a full plan in place but it does not include a change of flag or national anthem. Do you vote no?

Fringe group stuff.

Why would anyone waste their time on them? Who are those groups? Self-appointed busybodies claiming to speak for everyone, laying down a timetable?

The public aren't interested, most of the political parties aren't interest, there is no groundswell from civil society in the North for a border poll, why is time being wasted on these things?

Hang on, you've just said (and thanks for giving a personal opinion on it), that you believe a new flag and anthem are required, yet you would still vote yes despite them not being part of a UI plan?

Changing the flag and anthem are flat out concessions to those who don't see them as theirs, and I agree with you we would need new ones for a UI that embrace all cultures.

Yet, ML in her only public pronouncement on the matter that I'm aware of, stated she would prefer to keep them. What is certainly not needed, is a bullying through of a border poll based purely on demographics. While that is likely in the north, an eff you as you put it we're keeping the flag and anthem as they are plan would and should be rightly rejected in the south.

We're out to unite as friends, not antagonise, you've said as much yourself.

If a plan is produced it has to be agreed by those contributing to it. So I was assuming there would be a convincing reason for keeping the flags that gets agreement. No idea what that might be though.

So read this in light of the clarification above.


Depends on how much debate and consideration was given.

If there is a rational discussion involving all and some body is more persuasive, then I'd vote yes.

If it's a 'F*** you the flag anthem stays, then it would be a no vote here.