Reunification Question

Jawgap · 18-09-2015 2:11pm

end of the road wrote: »

oh yes they will. they will do whatever to destroy it.

......just shows how little you understand of the way the respective health systems are organised and funded and how the interest groups prevalent in each interact and play off one another.

Crooked Jack · 18-09-2015 3:56pm

landofthetree wrote: »

He will be gone in two years if the Polls show Labour falling well behind. Highly likely in my opinion.

Quite possibly, I'm jsut saying that would be idiotic of labour and pretty much guarantee not only conservative governments for the next 10-15 years but a second Scottish referendum within that time frame

sparky42 · 18-09-2015 4:04pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Quite possibly, I'm jsut saying that would be idiotic of labour and pretty much guarantee not only conservative governments for the next 10-15 years but a second Scottish referendum within that time frame

Given the SNP statements today, I'm fairly sure that they are going to try again no matter what Labour does or even if it gets back into power.

Godge · 18-09-2015 6:03pm

end of the road wrote: »

the expressed will of the north. the south doesn't matter, its vote to remove irelands legitimate claim to the north means nothing as ireland will always have a legitimate claim to it dispite the southern unionists and free staters opinions

So you are a fascist, ignoring democracy and telling the people what it is they want.

Surely a country can only have a legitimate claim if its people want it to have a legtimate claim. In the case of Northern Ireland, we abolished our claim.

Berserker · 20-09-2015 10:27pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Given the SNP statements today, I'm fairly sure that they are going to try again no matter what Labour does or even if it gets back into power.

They won't get another one under Cameron's watch though. He gave them their referendum last year, as promised and they decided to stay in the UK. Doubt very much that Cameron wants to be the PM under which Scotland gains independence.

downcow · 21-09-2015 7:32am

The use of the term 'reunification' always makes me smile.
The only period Ireland was united was under British rule. Therefore when people ask for 'reunification' do they mean under the British crown or do they really mean - Let's try an new idea never tried before on this Island ie lets go for an independent unified Island - But maybe if we do that then we should have a new flag, new anthems, etc, etc

Crooked Jack · 21-09-2015 8:39am

downcow wrote: »

The use of the term 'reunification' always makes me smile.
The only period Ireland was united was under British rule. Therefore when people ask for 'reunification' do they mean under the British crown or do they really mean -

This really depends on whether or not you recognise the proclamation of the republic and the first Dail. It also just refers to the ending of partition. Surely for something to be partitioned it had to be together at some point. A few people have tried to make this point about reunification before but it's not nearly as clever as they seem to think.

Let's try an new idea never tried before on this Island ie lets go for an independent unified Island - But maybe if we do that then we should have a new flag, new anthems, etc, etc

I'd have no issue with this

The Corinthian · 21-09-2015 9:10am

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Surely for something to be partitioned it had to be together at some point.

I think there is no disagreement on this. It was together under British rule.

Ireland was de facto united by the time the Crown of Ireland Act was passed in 1542 - the culmination of a long process of subjugation of the various independent Gaelic kingdoms that shared the island with the Lordship of Ireland - for which the English monarch was recognized as Dominus Hibernae by the Church.

Prior to this there was no united Ireland. There was a ramshackle and politically powerless role of 'High King', but Ireland was de facto a collection of independent kingdoms, much like England was prior to Alfred the Great. It should be noted that these kingdoms were frequently at war with each other, and it was in fact one of these that invited the original Norman invasion as a means of seeking advantage against the other factions.

The kingdom of Ireland was later placed in union with Scotland at England-Wales (Wales never required a legal union as it was a possession of England) and finally what had been the Kingdom of Ireland was partitioned in 1921, with the larger part gaining dominion status and later breaking away completely.

So the island of Ireland was united, but ironically not by the Irish. Historically the island of Ireland has never been an independent nation of any kind, so it is questionable if we should refer to it as reunification unless we are willing to accept that it was only unified as the possession of a foreign power.

armaghlad · 21-09-2015 10:36am

downcow wrote: »

The use of the term 'reunification' always makes me smile.
The only period Ireland was united was under British rule. Therefore when people ask for 'reunification' do they mean under the British crown or do they really mean - Let's try an new idea never tried before on this Island ie lets go for an independent unified Island - But maybe if we do that then we should have a new flag, new anthems, etc, etc

I think it is disingenuous to suggest that anyone seriously advocating unification would want anything other than a "new" state. I certainly wouldn't want the north merging into the Republic in its current guise. Two toxic entities in this island.

The Corinthian · 21-09-2015 10:51am

armaghlad wrote: »

I think it is disingenuous to suggest that anyone seriously advocating unification would want anything other than a "new" state.

Well, while we're on the topic, if unification meant a new state, let's not pretend that NI, with a population of 1.9m, and the Republic, with a population of 4.6m, should have equal say in what that state will look like.

armaghlad · 21-09-2015 10:58am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, while we're on the topic, if unification meant a new state, let's not pretend that NI, with a population of 1.9m, and the Republic, with a population of 4.6m, should have equal say in what that state will look like.

I wouldn't disagree. What I would say is plenty in the north (i.e. Unionists) have a lot more in common with many in the south than either care to acknowledge.

Happyman42 · 21-09-2015 11:16am

armaghlad wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree. What I would say is plenty in the north (i.e. Unionists) have a lot more in common with many in the south than either care to acknowledge.

As the British continue the process of economically downsizing in NI that will become more and more apparent to the pragmatic/moderates (by far the bigger percentile among Unionists)

The Corinthian · 21-09-2015 12:47pm

armaghlad wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree. What I would say is plenty in the north (i.e. Unionists) have a lot more in common with many in the south than either care to acknowledge.

Quite possibly. Of course, for many in the south, northern unionists and nationalists ironically have more in common with each other than they do with anyone south of the border.

demfad · 21-09-2015 2:34pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, while we're on the topic, if unification meant a new state, let's not pretend that NI, with a population of 1.9m, and the Republic, with a population of 4.6m, should have equal say in what that state will look like.

I would imagine NI might perhaps have more say as they would have more issues that would have to be met before it happened.

Examples:

Nationality: optional British citizenship,
Security: PSNI remains for NI or at least for the NE part.
Parades etc.

The Irish economic model would remain more or less with few arguments. Less Dublin centric with a proportional guarantee for investment perhaps.

The big issue might be an insistance on some role for the English monarchy.
This might have to be accommodated through the dual citizenship. I don't think it would be possible or fair to bring the republican country back under a monarch where a minority (even in NI) would insist on this.

The biggest arguments for partition (in the early 20th century) was to do with religious/civil liberties and economic disaster. Nationality wasn't an issue as everyone was Irish albeit British subjects.

Now the big arguments would be related to nationality, i.e polarisation due to partition. Partition was meant to be a temporary solution according to British and Irish politicians of the day (not necessarily 6 county Unionists). The changes in perceived nationality that partition effected are very difficult to reverse.

The Corinthian · 21-09-2015 2:45pm

demfad wrote: »

I would imagine NI might perhaps have more say as they would have more issues that would have to be met before it happened.

Let's not confuse local considerations with a minority deciding the shape of a nation for the majority.

The Irish economic model would remain more or less with few arguments. Less Dublin centric with a proportional guarantee for investment perhaps.

How do you intend to do that? Central economic planning, Soviet style? Unless you hadn't noticed this is an issue that has dogged the Republic for a long time and attempts have been made (e.g. Shannon) to deal with it.

The big issue might be an insistance on some role for the English monarchy.
This might have to be accommodated through the dual citizenship.

Honestly, I doubt anything needs to be done there. Irish citizens were, and some still are, able to apply for British citizenship long after independence, the same will almost certainly be afforded by the British government in the event of unification. And Irish citizenship already allows multiple citizenship.

demfad · 21-09-2015 4:47pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let's not confuse local considerations with a minority deciding the shape of a nation for the majority.

The majority of NI's considerations will be local so they wont be deciding the shape of the nation for the majority. The main issue could revolve around a role for the monarchy which would not be soluble or fair for ROI citizens in my opinion.

How do you intend to do that? Central economic planning, Soviet style? Unless you hadn't noticed this is an issue that has dogged the Republic for a long time and attempts have been made (e.g. Shannon) to deal with it.

I don't intend to do anything, Ill vote as I see fit if the occasion arises.

A confounding part of the centralisation problem in the Republic is due to not having a large urban centre outside of Dublin. The sole fact of having Belfast in the State changes this ratio. With a hinterland population approaching a million, Belfast has enough gravity to withstand the centralisation pull of Dublin. As part of Ireland it will also gain many of its competitive advantages for attracting FDI. Without the economic nightmare of being uncompetitive in Ireland and the UK, due to being geographically Irish while politically British, means that home grown business in NI counties should be advantaged. On a level playing field with the rest of Ireland this has historically been the case.

There will need to be different policing arrangements. I don't see the Gardai as being as well equipt as the PSNI to deal with areas of current NI. This (leaving the PSNI to police most of old NI) would instill confidence amongst Protestants in these areas also.

Barring Scottish independence, I dont see unification emerging for another 50 years.

eire4 · 21-09-2015 5:32pm

Berserker wrote: »

They won't get another one under Cameron's watch though. He gave them their referendum last year, as promised and they decided to stay in the UK. Doubt very much that Cameron wants to be the PM under which Scotland gains independence.

If Britain votes to leave the EU (and the most recent poll shows a majority in favour of leaving) then the SNP have said they will go for another Independance referendum so Cameron having promised the EU vote will be faced with that prospect if Britain leaves the EU. The most recent polls in Scotland show the support for independance continuing to grow and now being in the majority.

Berserker · 21-09-2015 9:07pm

eire4 wrote: »

If Britain votes to leave the EU (and the most recent poll shows a majority in favour of leaving) then the SNP have said they will go for another Independance referendum so Cameron having promised the EU vote will be faced with that prospect if Britain leaves the EU.

Cameron promised the Scots a referendum on the matter of independence when he went into power first time round. He honoured that promise last year and gave them their referendum. The SNP can push all they want, he doesn't have to give them another one and he won't. It's not even on the table this time round. The push to leave the EU has no influence on the matter.

eire4 wrote: »

The most recent polls in Scotland show the support for independance continuing to grow and now being in the majority.

Polls, polls, polls. The 'Yes' campaign was the political equivalent of a country mile ahead before the vote last year.

Jawgap · 22-09-2015 1:48am

Berserker wrote: »

Cameron promised the Scots a referendum on the matter of independence when he went into power first time round. He honoured that promise last year and gave them their referendum. The SNP can push all they want, he doesn't have to give them another one and he won't. It's not even on the table this time round. The push to leave the EU has no influence on the matter.

Polls, polls, polls. The 'Yes' campaign was the political equivalent of a country mile ahead before the vote last year.

That would completely ignore the facts on the ground - if the UK in total votes to leave the EU, but the vote in Scotland (and NI) is against it, then immediately that's grounds for another independence referendum (and possibly a border referendum in NI).

If he didn't give it, there'd be a huge backlash and he'd only end having to give it later. Better to do it sooner on his terms than be bounced it and be faced with an even more resentful electorate looking to vent built up frustration with a remote London government.

demfad · 22-09-2015 10:10am

Jawgap wrote: »

That would completely ignore the facts on the ground - if the UK in total votes to leave the EU, but the vote in Scotland (and NI) is against it, then immediately that's grounds for another independence referendum (and possibly a border referendum in NI).

If he didn't give it, there'd be a huge backlash and he'd only end having to give it later. Better to do it sooner on his terms than be bounced it and be faced with an even more resentful electorate looking to vent built up frustration with a remote London government.

The 1707 Act of Union was massively popular in Scotland.
It was passed as a result of

Bribery: (English money to compensate Scotland MPs financially ruined from the Darien scheme, and..well..good old straight forward bribery)

Economic blackmail: The Alien Act passed in 1705 banning Scottish imports into England or any of its colonies and deeming Scots and their Assets as 'Alien' in England. The Alien Act had a clause that it could be suspended pending political Union between England and Scotland.

Military threat: 'If you dont pass it, we'll invade and annex anyway'. You have a free choice.

It was passed.

Robert Burns take on this:

"We're bought and sold for English Gold,
Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation."

It was massively unpopular amongst the Scottish population:

The English Spy, Daniel Defoe's first reports were of violent demonstrations against the Union. "A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind, for every Scot in favour there is 99 against".

In the recent referendum the split was 55/45.

45% Yes is a massively high result. There is a large proportion who will vote no, simply out of fear of the unknown immediate consequences.
For example, If Scotland was independent and had a referendum to join the UK, adding the 'fear of change' vote to the yes side would at a guess give 70:30 against Union.

Cameron doesn't get this or doesn't care. But he should have given the Scots what was promised post referendum. In the next referendum, many of the the aged NO voters will be gone, the Scots wont heed the English threats, and I don't think bribing the Scottish parliament or threatening with the army will work this time.

The way Cameron is going it will be 99 Scots against and 1 for. The way it really was when the Act was initially passed corruptly.

Godge · 22-09-2015 12:29pm

eire4 wrote: »

If Britain votes to leave the EU (and the most recent poll shows a majority in favour of leaving) then the SNP have said they will go for another Independance referendum so Cameron having promised the EU vote will be faced with that prospect if Britain leaves the EU. The most recent polls in Scotland show the support for independance continuing to grow and now being in the majority.

Yes, people are reverting back to their long-term aspirational dreams in the polls when not faced with the imminence of a poll.

We have the same problem in the South where everyone wants a united Ireland but nobody has told them how much it will cost them in taxes.

Happyman42 · 22-09-2015 1:17pm

Godge wrote: »

Yes, people are reverting back to their long-term aspirational dreams in the polls when not faced with the imminence of a poll.

.

But a 'poll' was 'imminent' when this happened. What were the 45% thinking/reverting to here?

Crooked Jack · 22-09-2015 1:33pm

Berserker wrote: »

Cameron promised the Scots a referendum on the matter of independence when he went into power first time round. He honoured that promise last year and gave them their referendum. The SNP can push all they want, he doesn't have to give them another one and he won't. It's not even on the table this time round. The push to leave the EU has no influence on the matter.

And it is exactly this kind of behaviour and attitude that will fuel scottish resentment and push even more people into the Yes camp. So by all means I say let the pigfucker be as big a dick to the scots as he likes.

Polls, polls, polls. The 'Yes' campaign was the political equivalent of a country mile ahead before the vote last year.

Some polls put the Yes campaign slightly ahead. Nothing in your sentence is accurate.

johnnyskeleton · 22-09-2015 3:01pm

Mod Note:

Slang and offensive language are hardly necessary to make your point.

eire4 · 22-09-2015 5:17pm

Berserker wrote: »

Cameron promised the Scots a referendum on the matter of independence when he went into power first time round. He honoured that promise last year and gave them their referendum. The SNP can push all they want, he doesn't have to give them another one and he won't. It's not even on the table this time round. The push to leave the EU has no influence on the matter.

Polls, polls, polls. The 'Yes' campaign was the political equivalent of a country mile ahead before the vote last year.

You know it is quite funny reading posts like that. The very mindset you put forth in that post saying no to another independence referendum is exactly the kind of mentality that will lead quicker to a second one regardless of the outcome of the referendum on EU membership. The reality is that in Scotland support for independence has growth since the vote a year ago. It now seems that the vote at the time was a starting point on the road to an independant Scotland.

So polls you don't like the results don't matter? As for this time last year the yes vote was never a country mile ahead in the polls before last years vote. In fact it was the no vote that for a long period was well ahead in the polls. Making a patently false claim as you did about the polls before last years referendum is another exemple of the kind of attitude that just increases support for Scottish independence.

16–17 Sep Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard 991 45% 50%

16–17 Sep Survation/Daily Record 1,160 43% 48%

15–17 Sep YouGov/The Times/The Sun 3,237 45% 49%

15–17 Sep Panelbase 1,004 45% 50%

eire4 · 22-09-2015 5:38pm

Godge wrote: »

Yes, people are reverting back to their long-term aspirational dreams in the polls when not faced with the imminence of a poll.

We have the same problem in the South where everyone wants a united Ireland but nobody has told them how much it will cost them in taxes.

So you don't like the poll results you dismiss them. Not a very convincing argument especially when it is clear that the yes campaign has gained momentum since last years referendum. But I guess the fact that this is the first time that polls are showing a clear lead for independence means nothing then. I guess the fact that the SNP membership since independence has gone through the roof means nothing. It has increased by over 400% since the referendum a year ago. I guess the fact that at the last British general election in May the SNP went from 6 seats to 56 out of the 59 in Scotland also means nothing.

Happyman42 · 22-09-2015 5:53pm

eire4 wrote: »

So you don't like the poll results you dismiss them. Not a very convincing argument especially when it is clear that the yes campaign has gained momentum since last years referendum. But I guess the fact that this is the first time that polls are showing a clear lead for independence means nothing then. I guess the fact that the SNP membership since independence has gone through the roof means nothing. It has increased by over 400% since the referendum a year ago. I guess the fact that at the last British general election in May the SNP went from 6 seats to 56 out of the 59 in Scotland also means nothing.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question on what 45% where 'reverting' to
when a poll was 'imminent'. No joy yet.
Apparently you need to have a holistic view of polls to understand them.

I think most people use them like politicians, if it suits they are great, if not, they are not dependable and you must consider some other factor.

eire4 · 22-09-2015 6:07pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question on what 45% where 'reverting' to
when a poll was 'imminent'. No joy yet.
Apparently you need to have a holistic view of polls to understand them.

I think most people use them like politicians, if it suits they are great, if not, they are not dependable and you must consider some other factor.

I don't know about most people but certainly Godge seems to have the politicans view of polls they are brilliant when they support his position and dismissive for one reason or another when they support a position he does not like.

Fratton Fred · 22-09-2015 6:50pm

demfad wrote: »

The 1707 Act of Union was massively popular in Scotland.
It was passed as a result of

Bribery: (English money to compensate Scotland MPs financially ruined from the Darien scheme, and..well..good old straight forward bribery)

Economic blackmail: The Alien Act passed in 1705 banning Scottish imports into England or any of its colonies and deeming Scots and their Assets as 'Alien' in England. The Alien Act had a clause that it could be suspended pending political Union between England and Scotland.

Military threat: 'If you dont pass it, we'll invade and annex anyway'. You have a free choice.

It was passed.

Robert Burns take on this:

"We're bought and sold for English Gold,
Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation."

It was massively unpopular amongst the Scottish population:

The English Spy, Daniel Defoe's first reports were of violent demonstrations against the Union. "A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind, for every Scot in favour there is 99 against".

In the recent referendum the split was 55/45.

45% Yes is a massively high result. There is a large proportion who will vote no, simply out of fear of the unknown immediate consequences.
For example, If Scotland was independent and had a referendum to join the UK, adding the 'fear of change' vote to the yes side would at a guess give 70:30 against Union.

Cameron doesn't get this or doesn't care. But he should have given the Scots what was promised post referendum. In the next referendum, many of the the aged NO voters will be gone, the Scots wont heed the English threats, and I don't think bribing the Scottish parliament or threatening with the army will work this time.

The way Cameron is going it will be 99 Scots against and 1 for. The way it really was when the Act was initially passed corruptly.

you do know that the Scottish parliament approached England with regards unification, not the other way around, don't you? The Scots had thrown everything in to the Darien scheme and lost the lot .

It wasn't the first time either, it had been discussed several times previously.

Berserker · 22-09-2015 9:24pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

And it is exactly this kind of behaviour and attitude that will fuel scottish resentment and push even more people into the Yes camp. So by all means I say let the pigfucker be as big a dick to the scots as he likes.

David Cameron has better things to do than grant independence referenda to the Scots ad nauseam. You can throw all the hypothetical scenarios you can think of around but that is the reality of the situation. Cameron will drip feed his promises to the Scots over the course of the next few years, which will keep them on side. The next PM, which will be another Tory when you look at the competition as of now, may well have to deal with this issue again but any notions of a referendum on the matter are purely theoretical until that point.

Charming language btw!

Reunification Question

Comments