Matthew on 16/3/2009 at 11:29
Don't discount the polarising effect of religion in all this, though.
Macha - on the other hand, if a majority of the people living in Northern Ireland don't want a united Ireland yet, should their wishes be overridden based on what occurred several hundred years ago? Should the tipping point be a majority of the whole of the island's population instead?
See, this is why NI is a shitty place sometimes. The viewpoints of both sides are more or less diametrically opposed.
demagogue on 16/3/2009 at 23:24
Hey guys, America would be more than happy to absorb N. Ireland as a new state, East Massachusetts. Then we can rename Belfast to New Boston.
America loves Irish. We already have 41 million of them (compared to only 6 million in Ireland & N. Ireland combined).
just a joke obviously
Macha on 17/3/2009 at 11:38
There is no empirical evidence showing us what percentage are up for a united Ireland and the percentage that are opposed. I think a United Ireland is the best way forward for everyone included. The problem is people's interpretation of what a United Ireland would be. I'd hope that it would be one that protects all Irish Identies and cultures like loyalism for example. Bottomline as well is that Northern Ireland is a pointless state in which no one has any real power. Despite devolution, we are still ruled by the crown and all our main laws are controlled by a foreign government.
Scots Taffer on 18/3/2009 at 00:09
A United Ireland is a terrible idea. It's like saying to Israel and Palestine, c'mon guys let's just have a friendly tea party.
There are too many years of shared hatred.
Matthew on 18/3/2009 at 10:53
Quote Posted by Macha
Bottomline as well is that Northern Ireland is a pointless state in which no one has any real power. Despite devolution, we are still ruled by the crown and all our main laws are controlled by a foreign government.
There are those who would take the exact opposite viewpoint, of course.
Scots is probably close to the mark.
sh0ck3r on 18/3/2009 at 15:42
No, he's not. It is foolish to compare the Ulster-Scots to the Israelis in any meaningful way. The Ulster-Scots never had an ancient presence anywhere in Ireland. In fact, Scotland was itself formed by an Irish tribe, as evident today in the profound split between Highlanders and Lowlanders (which is racially but not politically as drastic as the 32 counties vs. 6 counties differences).
As I see it, colonialism takes 3 forms: personal (bigotry), strategic (imperial; resources), moral (e.g. "White Man's Burden")
The Normans entered Ireland because the 1 English Pope sanctioned it and because they thought the inhabitants of Ireland were indolent. They certainly did not enter to take over a linen industry or abduct some cows or mine diamonds. In fact, the Old English and Old Irish got along extremely well. Eventually, in the Elizabethan Age the English started claiming their imperialism was for moral reasons, that the Irish couldn't run their own country. So they built some apartheid towns surrounded by walls, claiming this "interaction" would teach the Irish how to live. The English settlers in Cork that came under Elizabeth were largely accomplished people like Sir Walter Ralegh, Edmund Spenser, Francis Drake, etc. Then the Scottish King James I had a dilemma with nomadic criminals in the Scottish lowlands, who happened to be Protestant. And also, the only part of Ireland still maintaining a Gaelic culture was northeast Ireland (Ulster). He planted some of these Lowlanders in the Scottish Highlands; this amounted to little. But then he planted between 100,000-200,000 in northeast Ireland simply because it was the most anti-English part of Ireland; and this is really the only reason Northern Ireland exists today, simply the profound effects of this policy.
The rebellion in 1641, really the first Troubles, was by the dispossessed Ulster Irish. This was put down by Oliver Cromwell, whose settlement drove all Catholics "to Hell or Connaught." His settlement killed or exiled perhaps a third to a half of the island. This seemed to prove that England was not maintaining Ireland to teach it anything but rather just to make it some sort of whipping boy. It had no respect for any Irish customs and it's indeed silly how someone on the BBC might wear green today (St. Patrick's day), when they might've hung an Irish person 300 years ago for it (5 pounds a head for a rebel, and they're all rebels).
The laissez faire famine really obliterated England's claim to be in Ireland for the "White Man's Burden." It is merely colonialism over some personal bigotry perhaps compounded by an appreciation for the land, as opposed to any security threat from the Irish or any significant resources (like New World gold) to be gained.
Of course, the Ulster-Scots have some mythology of their own as a result of being besieged in Derry and eating rats because the (English) King James II was Catholic.
But ultimately, the idea of a natural majority in northeast Ireland is, I think, overrated. If not for the arbitrary plantation by James I, which never taught the Irish anything that they would accept, there would be no Troubles. If England were less obdurately hopeless about the zero chance of winning over "dissidents" (haven't all Irish rebels been "dissidents"?), it would choose a quiet time (obviously it would never withdraw in a time of war because it needs to prove a point clearly) - it could have done this 2 years ago - and then simply leave, helping the 26 counties deal with the potential loyalist terrorism.
The crux of the matter is that a United Ireland has at least the potential for eventual peace, whereas the current Northern Ireland will never, ever be peaceful, no matter how many Ted Kennedys the queen knights.
Powersharing is a nice bandaid. But perhaps N. Ireland's "seizures" would be better addressed by first recognizing the source of the problem, namely that its stepfather beat the shit out of it a bit much. No one should believe that in the last decade N. Ireland was significantly more than a sick person confined to bed. It certainly wasn't walking. But enough...
The current shootings have been counterproductive and reprehensible but in truth they were a somewhat unsurprising response to a deployment of special service members that arguably violated the Good Friday Agreement and was bound to cause controversy as a result of proven past collusion between them and loyalist paramilitaries.
Matthew on 18/3/2009 at 16:38
Quote Posted by sh0ck3r
No, he's not.
Umm, yes he is? I'm not talking about his comparison, I'm talking about his second statement. You can talk clinically about the history of the matter all you like, and believe me we have, but at the end of the day there are people on both sides who are
rabid about never letting the other have / keep what they want.
Scots Taffer on 18/3/2009 at 23:30
Yeah, the comparison was merely to illustrate centuries of hate not to indicate similarities in the nature of their conflict or their differences.
Mucca on 19/3/2009 at 00:26
Macha, your naive opinions do nothing but lend support and validity to the murderous 'cause' of a bunch of thugs. The idea of a united Ireland is nationalism of the worst kind, and is utterly despicable.
I picture you living in Germany in the thirties, calling for the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland.
sh0ck3r on 19/3/2009 at 01:11
I was going to ask Matthew and Scots Taffer to qualify their (ostensible) assertion that leaving N. Ireland in its current tangle is wiser than a United Ireland. To me, the debate lies in what is more sustainable in the long term.
But now this ridiculous comment...
Apparently, the entire Irish Republic was a "bunch of thugs" embracing a "murderous 'cause'" up until 1998, seeing as how they laid claim to the six counties. It's always ironic when someone compares Irish republican sentiment to Nazism, considering that Teutonic superiority was used as a justification by the English for centuries for ruling the Irish, e.g. Carlyle.
If the idea of a United Ireland is despicable, then what does that make the idea of the Plantations and Northern Ireland?
