BS: G.B. and N.I.?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 08:34 AM

There is a majority against a United Ireland in both the North and the South.

Would you still force it on them against their will Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 09:46 AM

Rag, I have read and re-read your linked article.
There is nothing there to contradict anything I have said.
The fault is yours.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 02:01 PM

Professor you posted "The Unionists are the majority in NI."

Simple

My post was in a response to that SIMPLE statement. Once again you were incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 07:01 PM

The people have spoken.

The Unionists are the majority.

The Unionists have spoken.

The Unionists are the people.

Have I missed something...?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 07:32 PM

"There is a majority against a United Ireland in both the North and the South."
You have just been given the fact that over 60% of the republic;w population would vote for a United Ireland
The DUP no longer had a majority and circumstances have wrought about changes that would probably vote the same
Only an agenda-driven moron would choose to ignore those facts
Business as usual with Keith then - he "wins" again (in his head)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 01:49 AM

'grotesque British solution to the problems of Imperialism'

come on Jim. That's less than honest. There has been a hell of a lot of collusion from the people native to the island of Ireland perpetuating partition.

And throughout history there have been a lot of supporters of home rule for Ireland this side of the Irish sea.

If you never face up to your own share of the responsibility for this situation, which has been unacceptable to so many for so long, when can it ever get solved?

Its so easy to just point the finger at the other guy.

The thing Keith is guilty of is not distortion of the facts. Facts are like wriggly eels - you can come up a kaleidoscope of interpretations. (First world war generals whose men were massacred were competent - being a good case for example). Its the suggestion that that partition is somehow justifiable or possibly desirable - even with all its history of bloodshed and rabble rousing that is so utterly wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 03:12 AM

"There has been a hell of a lot of collusion from the people native to the island of Ireland perpetuating partition."
Go read your history books Al
Partition was forced on Ireland at gunpoint - "sign in three days or go to war" - the result was a brutal year-long civil war - not a lot of "collusion" there.
The country was divided by gerrymandering - first it was to be the whole of the nine counties, then Britain did the math and realised that that would give the Catholics a majority, so they lopped three counties off to give the Unionists power - that's how "democrat" a Unionist Ulster was reached (sort of like deciding the nature of Britain's Govenment by only including the wealthy South East soft underbelly.
From the word "go", the division was unequal - voting rights were based on property ownership - the property owners were predominantly Protestant.
Regular Anti-Catholic riots, employment boycotts, inability to purchase land..... and a whole mass of laws and practices, became permanent features of life for a third of the population
Members of my family were forced to flee Derry - including two young cousins and a babe in arms - when their house was burned down by a protestant mob.
When the Catholics protested in the late sixties, their peaceful marches were navigated though screaming mobs o stone- throwing Loyalists, despite this, the first sectarian murders of 'The Troubles' were carried out by Protestant terrorists led by Gusty Spence - a pub bombing.
As I said - go read a history book
I'm putting this up for you - it's been dealt with ad-nauseum on other threads and justified (or ignored) by out two resident anti- Irish racists
I have no intention of covering it again with two people who have made clear trheir hatred for the Irih - one who thinks all Irish children were brainwashed to hate Britain, the other who claims the Irish were stupid enough to not want independence for themselves but were "conned into it by foreigners" and both who claim that last years dignified and critical commemoration of the Easter Uprising was "celebrating mass murder" - which makes every other nation who has taken up arms to obtain independence from Britain - The United States, Israel, India, Kenya, Cyprus..... "mass murderers"
It is a grotesque hangover of Empire that Britain should still dominate the life and politics of Six Counties in Northern Ireland - the shadow of a system that brought misery, slavery and death to generations throughout the world for many centuries in order that Britain should grow and remain rich and powerful (while, of course, the ordinary British people remained as poor and oppressed as their colonial counterparts)
Ireland is now, hopefully, closing the book on eight centuries of outside interference - not before time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 03:31 AM

Jim,
You have just been given the fact that over 60% of the republic;w population would vote for a United Ireland

You have been given the fact that numerous surveys show that not to be true.

Steve and Rag, in recent months the Unionist parties have finally lost their majority vote. I have referred to the fact that it has been dwindling for years.
There is still a majority in the North who want to stay in the Union, and a majority in the South who do not want the North in the Republic.

My statement, "The people have spoken enough times on this. The majority do not want to be ruled from Dublin and would resist it." was entirely accurate and you were wrong to challenge it.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:12 AM

Al,
First world war generals whose men were massacred were competent

That suggest that there was something else they could have done.
A hundred years of research has not come up with anything.

They were tasked with driving back a cruel invader, but defensive military technology had become so advanced that it could not be done without incurring those appalling casualties.

British generals did better than any of the others. They were the most competent.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:19 AM

"You have been given the fact that numerous surveys show that not to be true."
You have been given the last one that says it is and you haev been given an up-to-date assesment which shows that that majority is likely to increase thanks to a corrupt Govenment, an incometent Westminster administration and a Brexit that is likely to bring a hard border and an unstable economy for at least a decade (based on Bank of England assesments0
The day of the billy boy is over Keith
You don't respond to my description of the history of partition - it is based on documented fact which you have been provided with ad nauseum
No administration which behaves like that is fir to rule - it is a Banana Republic type of administration that allows those things
Empire is now an outlawed sytem of government throughout the world - Northern Ireland is the last remnants of that oppressive system - time it was put to bed along with racist morons who describe the children of a nation as "brainwashed to hate"
Way past your bedtime Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:22 AM

Yes but the aforesaid protestant mob weren't a gang of Latvian plumbers on a weekend break. They were your fellow countrymen, were they not?

that's the point. To suggest people like Carson and Paisley were anything other than Irish is disingenuous.

somewhere along the line in this equation are two lots of Irish people who have to coexist peacefully.

You won't do anything about the English tories being a pile of shits who occasionally rely on the unionist mp's. we can't do anything so you can't.

but you could do something about this endless fantasy that its all a problem created by England.

Since Victorian times there have been large numbers of English politicians (occasionally in power) who would have been only too willing to rid themselves of involvement in Irish affairs.

If in the interim, you had sorted yourselves out and found some mutually agreeable solution, THEN when there is a sympathetic administration would be the the time to sort this out for all time

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:25 AM

"The majority do not want to be ruled from Dublin and would resist it." "
The people have been asked twice - that is not "many times"
You lied
No referendum has ever asked if they would resist a United Ireland - you made it up - you lied again
"They were tasked with driving back a cruel invader,"
Strait out of Biggles - jingoistic jargon
What comic book did that piece of flag - wagging melodrama did that come from
You are an anachronistic joke
Rule Britannia -eh what
Where's me whiskey and soda?
Jay-sus!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:38 AM

Jim,
You have been given the last one that says it is

Not true. You just said, "In the South, a poll carried out over a year ago indicated that 65% of the population would vote for a United Ireland."

You got that wrong Jim.
In that 2015 survey in the Republic, which was in my link, only 35% said there should be unity "in the short to medium term."

65% said they would like to see it as "long term policy," "in their lifetime." They would not vote for it now. Only 35% would, as I said in my earlier post.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:44 AM

Jim,
The people have been asked twice - that is not "many times"
You lied

I do not lie Jim. There have been many surveys as well as the referenda.

No referendum has ever asked if they would resist a United Ireland - you made it up - you lied again

They do not want it. Of course there would be resistance. Probably an "armed struggle." It was not implemented originally because the Army refused to fight them.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 05:19 AM

"I do not lie Jim. There have been many surveys as well as the referenda."
There have been only two referenda - TWO IS NOT "MANY"
The Only time the "people" were asked to resist was when the UNIONISTS ONLY in 1912 when half a million of them signd The Covenant
To put a clause about resistance in any survey or referendum would have been an open incitement to violence - not even the Ulster administration would dare have done that
You made it up and are continuing to defend your invention
"You got that wrong Jim."No I did not - you were given a comprehensive article from 'The Journal' which said exactly what I have said
Stop making things up to defand an archaic hangover of Empire

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 06:16 AM

22 August
Now please go away and take your 'Little England Colonialism with you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:08 AM

Thanks Jim, an interesting link.

As you say, it shows a 2/3 majority for a united Ireland (at present). That's clear enough.
Apart from a brief comment about the number of people in 'the North' who wish to remain in the EC, it doesn't clarify what this 'United Ireland' would be.
Would the Republic join Northern Ireland as part of the UK, or would Northern Ireland become part of the Republic and therefore part of the EC?

The closest the article comes to quoting the question doesn't seem to address this point:
Asked how they would vote if a referendum was held tomorrow, 65% of the sample electorate said they would vote in favour of a united Ireland.

Cheers
Nigel
(looking forward to Dublin 2019 The Dublin Worldcon)

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:57 AM

"it doesn't clarify what this 'United Ireland' would be."
That is surely up to the Irish people to decide?
The problems that have arisen in the last century were caused by a foreign power imposing conditions from outside
The days when that was the practice went with the Empire.
Morally and logically, any referendum should include the entire population of the Island of Ireland - the six counties state was an artificially created one in order to suit a majority rather than the population as a whole - that's what brought about so many deaths in 'The Troubles' - caused by a deprived minority dominated by a belligerent administration
Brexit has brought the question of a United Ireland into the limelight again - probably the only positive thing to come from the increasingly shambolic decison
Not even the Republic's politicians are in the mood to compromise now
Wake up time for a dead Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 08:33 AM

Jim,
You got that wrong Jim."No I did not - you were given a comprehensive article from 'The Journal' which said exactly what I have said

I linked you to the full results of a number of surveys.
Here it is again,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Public_opinion

That latest survey appears to show a majority in the Republic who want the North to join them.

That still would leave a majority in the whole island against, and more to the point a large majority against in the North itself.

Should they be forced against their will?
Supposing many did decide to resist, as previous experience would strongly suggest?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Kampervan
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 08:34 AM

I wonder if we could have a vote on the mainland to say whether we still want NI to be part of GB or not?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 08:37 AM

I am sure we would all vote to be rid of them.
I certainly would.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 08:49 AM

Jim,
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:57 AM

"it doesn't clarify what this 'United Ireland' would be."
That is surely up to the Irish people to decide?

I fully agree that it is for the Irish to decide.
But isn't it a little disingenuous to leave that 'little' matter out of a discussion on whether they wish to be unified?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 09:03 AM

"Here it is again,"
he last survey on the question of a United Ireland on your list was in 2014
The latter chart shows those in favout of a border poll - to quote
Respondents were not asked how they would vote in such a poll.[52][53] yet you continue to inist there is a majority against a United Ireland - how stupidly dishonest can you get
All your link shows is how positions have changed radically in three years - just as they have been changing since the first referendum
What the **** are you7 trying to prove Keith - that Britain should still retain the right of Empire over its former colonies?
"who want the North to join them."
That phrase in itself, is dishonest politicking
"join" who?
Irealand is Ireland and the Irish are the Irish.
The people of Ireland want the six stolen counties back - they aren't looking for members, like a golf club.
Your jingoistic ignorance appears to know no bounds.
The only reason that the six counties remained part of Britain was that economically, it suited many people that it should do so
That is no longer the case
Like Scotland, the Six Counties stand to come off very badly out of Brexit, both in terms of trade and in respect to the Peace Process.
Despite yours and Terry the Tosser's promises, Ireland is quite likely to end up with a hard border and all that means for trade
"I am sure we would all vote to be rid of them."
We know well your view of foreigners Keith - I'm sure you would
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 09:12 AM

If in the Republic 2/3rds would want to unite and allowing that not all 6.3 million people could choose, I would take a conservative guess that roughly 65% of people could voice an option, that is over the age of 18.

65% (approximately) of 6.3 million is near enough 4.1 million.

Of that 4.1 million 65% would want a united Ireland, that is 2.6 million.

Now the population of Northern Ireland is approximately 1.8 million.

You do the maths

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 09:59 AM

"'little' matter out of a discussion on whether they wish to be unified?"
No more than ignoring the fact that it appears that, put to the vote, most of them now do.
That aside - a section of a country can't 'vote' to be under another nation.
Partition was never put to the vote - it was forced through at gunpoint
Where is your consensus there?
What happened after partition removes any claim to democracy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 11:16 AM

to be honest Jim, I think it's you that hasn't realised the British Empire went out of business and went into flogging double glazing a while back.

I'm sorry but the guarantee of a sympathetic hearing on your tales of evil repression expired when the old firm went out of business.

The service depot has closed, and not before time.

There is a users website for all for people who are attached to using the old stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 11:40 AM

"expired when the old firm went out of business."
Tell that to the Peace Marchers that were stoned with the assistance of the police
Tell the victims of Bloody Sunday
Tell that to the victims of the UVF (assisted bt the British Security Forces)
Some progress has been made since then but Brexit has put a stop to that one
You people still have to respond to the point - no country should have domain over another - certainly not since the Empire went belly-up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:05 PM

we have no domination over you. the vast majority of English people just want you stop to giving yourselves excuses for acting badly. there are dozens of towns in England and Scotland where we could be rioting and bomb chucking from the way we've been treated by central government, but most people realise - the way forward is to stop examining the entrails of the past and make something of the future.

the troops weren't there until things kicked off, and no one wanted to be there.

if we did dominate you, the first thing we'd do is get you to stop insulting and provoking each other. some chance

the other blokes fault and the cops have got it in for me. yeh sure - get in the van!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:09 PM

Big Al there may be a point about the movement of goods but this back door for people getting into Britain idea doesn't really make sense. Why would say a Polish person fly to Dublin, then get a train to Northern Ireland, then either sail or fly to mainland Britain - when they can just fly straight to Britain or come through the Tunnel. Anyone from Europe can come on holiday anyway! Why would they need to come in via Ireland first. We surely aren't going to stop people visiting us? The issue is who is going to be able to work and claim benefits etc - not how they enter!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:21 PM

You fellers have always made the excuse that we can't give the six counties back because the majority don't want to leave the UK
Now the majority look like opting for a United Ireland, you seem to be doing a backward two-step
Funny that!!
You seem so concerned about what the people think - then how about this
The people of the North voted to remain in Europe (as did the Scots)
It seems that Brexit is going to hit these two places the hardest, and in Northern Ireland, destabalise the Peace Process into the bargain
Why not tell them, "Look lads and lasses - we want to leave Europe; you don't; so how about if we leave it like that - you stay, we'll go?"
Wouldn't that be the "democratic" thing to do?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:35 PM

"just want you stop to giving yourselves excuses for acting badly."
So wanting independence is "acting badly2
No need to ask which side you are in Al
You sound like a Keith Jingoist
Don't think I've ever read anything so partonising in my life
"he troops weren't there until things kicked off, and no one wanted to be there."
The troops should have been there to protect the catholic Britishers from the Unionist thugs - don't be proud of the fact that they only came in when things "kicked off"
When thet got ther, they culluded with terrorist like the IVF, they wreaked ther own particular havoc, and they did their share of killing and maiming non-combatant.
Back home, the authorities were fitting up innocent Irish people and leaving them to rot in prison - had hanging still been in place there would have been dozens of dead martyrs for the Irish to hold up as examples of British justic
About "yourselves" - I'm a Brit, I was born in Britain, as were my parents
I am in the postion of having to consider dual citizenship thanks to Brexit - bu I don't know if I'm entitled to is because my Irish roots are as far removed as they are.
You are as big a little Englander as your mate Keith
Go get someone to read you a history book Al - you obviously haven' the ability or the inclination to do it off your own bat
The religious divisions came about because the British gave power to sectarian thugs - spend time in the North and you'll find that the ordinary people get on very well with each other
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:37 PM

Did I really write IVF? - there's a Freudian slip, if you like
I meant UVF of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:40 PM

This was from the 2016 social attitudes study in Northern ireland which seems to suggest that 'unionists' are well short of being a majority of the population. When asked if they were unionist or nationalist etc only 29% defined themselves as unionists; and only 24% described themselves as nationalists. A greater number didn't describe themselves in those terms. Being a majority does not mean there are more than unionists than there are nationalists - it means the majority of the people are unionist. That doesn't seem to be the case. So it may show nationalists have a long way to go but it also suggests that a great many may be more open to persuasion than some suggest. In the same survey only 17% described themselves as "very strong" unionists. I take it only a fraction of those would favour an actual uprising should there be a democratic vote to unite Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 01:16 PM

"I take it only a fraction of those would favour an actual uprising should there be a democratic vote to unite Ireland."
That's always been the case Allan
The Unionists weer the first to introduce the gun into 20th century politics in Ireland, but the militants represented only a small minority - and armed minority, mind you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 03:53 PM

Jim,
What the **** are you7 trying to prove Keith - that Britain should still retain the right of Empire over its former colonies?

Absolutely not. We do not want any part of Ireland.
But, we believe in people's rights to self determination. We need just a 1% majority from the people involved.
I doubt either of us will see that, sadly.

Allan, they may not vote Unionist but they still want to stay in the Union, as do many "nationalists."

Read the results of the surveys in my link, or the whole of Jim's article.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:04 PM

There is something VERY telling in your last post professor.

You refer to Unionist's as just that, Unionists, you refer to "Nationalist's" as "Nationalists"

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 06:16 PM

well my Irish roots go back to the 1930's and my family was involved on the fenian side.

however thankfully my grandparents had the wisdom not make that bloody nonsense the story of our lives. they didn't need a history book to see no possible good could come from inculcating hatred in young people.

if you want to go on with these two legs good, four legs bad mantras. that's your choice, but i really don't think you have the right to stand in judgement of those of us who choose to distance ourselves from this long running horror story.

If the Scots and Irish want no part of Brexit - they know where the door is. All the Irish have to do is agree with each other long enough to go through the door. some chance of that!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 06:48 PM

Yes Keith but my point was that although many people may currently want the status quo in Northern Ireland it does not mean that they are necessarily very strong unionists or that they would not accept the outcome of a vote! If we are to believe that social survey then 83% of the people in Northern Ireland do not see themselves as very strong unionists and 71% do not see class themselves as unionist at all. Hence there is a softer underbelly of people supporting the status quo and no doubt a great many would at least theoretically be open to persuasion. Isn't that what democracy is all about?

Hence of course people can campaign for that so I don't get "the people have spoken enough times on this" thing. Democracy doesn't end at one specific time. It is ongoing so people can speak about issues as much as they want. There can be major changes in opinion over relatively short periods of time. For instance at the start of the Scottish referendum no-one gave the Yes side a hope in hell and they were lagging well behind in the polls. Around the time of the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 they were only at around 30% and some had them in the 20s but by Sept 2014 they were hotting 49% in one poll and ended at 45%. So a massive swing to yes during the campaign itself. So with all that is happening there is every possibility that the support for a united Ireland could mushroom during a run up to a referendum. Especially as there is such a high proportion of people who don't class themselves specifically as either unionists or nationalists then both sides have potential voters in big numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:01 PM

"If the Scots and Irish want no part of Brexit - they know where the door is."

The SNP were pressed and pressed as to under what circumstances they would hold another referendum! Eventually they stated when that would be considered and it was included in their manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections. When there was a major shift in public opinion towards Yes (which is I am sure is what they'd prefer) or if there was a major change and the example stated in the manifesto was if Scotland was to be taken out of the EU against the wishes of the Scottish people. The SNP won the said election and the leader of the Scottish Conservatives openly stated that it would be undemocratic for a British PM to block a second vote. The Scottish Parliament then voted to give the Scottish gvt the mandate to hold a second vote if they chose to and the motion was passed. However the British PM has blocked that for the time being. It will still likely come to a head at some point, but Al it is fine knowing where the door is - but if constitutionally you need the permission to open it from another parliament where you make up only 8% of the seats yourself then it is not quite so easy as you suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:14 PM

another parliament with a knife edge majority. i think if i wanted out i would chance my arm. start campaigning now!

i think it would be really exciting if the two countries departed. would Scotland reinstate a Stuart monarch? That would be something!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:24 PM

We do not want any part of Ireland."
Whoops - another referendum I missed !!!
How long have you been speaking for the British people Keith?
Stupid little man
"But, we believe in people's rights to self determination. "
Then why do you keep denyting what those rights are when you have been given the present situation?
"Allan, they may not vote Unionist but they still want to stay in the Union, as do many "nationalists.""
There oyu go again ignoring the figures
"Read the results of the surveys in my link, "
The result of those surveys have been pointed out to you - two thirds of the Republic want a United Ireland and its quite likely the North will equal that as Brexit shows what a complete shambles it has turned out to be
Why do you thin the Government has turned to a party with terrorist links for support - they no longer have an overall majority
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 01:48 AM

The official SNP policy is for the monarchy to remain unchanged though if independence came about I suspect it wouldn't take too long for that issue to be at least looked at to see if there was enough support for a republic in Scotland at large. There probably isn't at the moment. I don't think they'd be likely to dump the monarchy within this monarch's lifetime though. If they did it would be for a republic though rather than them choosing a new monarch.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 04:00 AM

Rag,
You refer to Unionist's as just that, Unionists, you refer to "Nationalist's" as "Nationalists"

I put them in quotes because they are Nationalists who want the Union.
I would do the same if discussing Unionists who wanted out of the Union.

Jim,
Stupid little man

Can we drop the silly abuse please Jim?

We do not want any part of Ireland."
Whoops - another referendum I missed !!!

Jim, NI is a vast money pit into which our national wealth has been squandered. I have never met anyone here who would not like to be rid of it. Have you? The British government never wanted it in the first place. They wanted the army to get rid of them, but they refused.

Allan, whatever your "Social Survey" says, we are still a long way from a majority against the Union in the North.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 04:07 AM

"Partition was forced on Ireland at gunpoint - "sign in three days or go to war" - the result was a brutal year-long civil war - not a lot of "collusion" there."

Utter nonsense and a total misrepresentation. Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations that resulted from a ceasefire called in the Anglo-Irish War - Of course if the agreement wasn't signed it would result IN THE RESUMPTION of hostilities - the "brutal year long CIVIL WAR you refer to had S.F.A. to do with the British Government it had everything to do with certain sections in the South of Ireland not agreeing with the deal that Good Ol' Dev sent Michael Collins to negotiate in London.

"The Unionists weer the first to introduce the gun into 20th century politics in Ireland, but the militants represented only a small minority"

The Unionists might have been the first to introduce (i.e. Import) the gun into 20th century politics in Ireland Jom - but the "Nationalists" who "imported" their own just a few months later were the first to use them - Nearly half a million Unionists signed their Covenant voluntarily whereas the Irish Volunteers numbered roughly 180,000. The vast majority of both volunteered to fight in the First World War against the Germans.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 04:32 AM

"Can we drop the silly abuse please Jim?"
Can you stop this hatred of the Irish Keith and answer the points honestly?
"Jim, NI is a vast money pit into which our national wealth has been squandered."
Northern Ireland was created by Britain in order to appease a sectarian group who were natural allies to British Imperialism
The Six Counties that were annexed were the most lucrative parts of the Island - that's why they were granted as settlements way back in history
Britain continued to profit from those counties from the produce of the land and from the industries that were developed there - the industrial North was an investment, not a "money pit" (statements like that earn you the description "stupid little man" every time you make them
The idea of Britain as a benefactor pouring money into a State out of the goodness of its heart is as stupid at it gets.
Unionist Northern Ireland has always been a part of Britain's right wing political strategy - hence the present deal which has cost the British taxpayer £billion as a bung - a bribe to give a political party support - the fact that this deal has been done with a party with terrorist links is an indication of British ruthlessness.
The party that Britain left in charge has shown its true mettle throughout its reign - sectatian violence, inequality, religious bigotry.... all part of the British influence
Your bleating about giving the people what they want has never taken the inequality and oppression Unionist brought to a sizeble minority of the people whose "rights" you shed your crocodile tears over
You have supported the sectarian violence by minimising it (and on one sick occasion, blaming it on "schoolchildren")
You have either justified it or, as you are doing now, refused to discuss it.
The idea that any country can rule another or part of another is now a historical anathema - you refuse even to acknowledge that fact.
You have denied the historical violence and the appalling misrule that has twisted and deformed six counties, and now you present it as an act of charity "a money pit"
Your ignorance and hatred of the Irish is a shining example of many centuries of British rule - it is the one valuable contribution you make to these discussions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 04:37 AM

Please note that the current SNP Government in Scotland has gone extremely quiet about a second Independence referendum - there is a very good reason for that - they know the answer would be a resounding NO. They have not resolved, or formulated answers to any of the "difficult questions" they failed to answer in the run up to the last referendum and with Leave winning the Brexit Referendum it makes answering those questions even more difficult.

Scottish trade is distributed roughly as follows:

15% with the rest of the world (Would remain unaffected by Brexit)
65% with the rest of the UK, primarily England (Would remain unaffected by Brexit)
20% with other EU member states

So economically and socially the Union with the rest of the UK is a damned sight more important to Scotland than any "union" with Europe.

Time lines for a second Scottish Referendum and an Independent Scotland rejoining the EU:

29th March 2017 - Article 50 triggered
29th March 2019 - Brexit negotiations concluded
Summer 2019 - Second Independence Referendum called for and agreed (Last one involved two years of preparation and campaigning)
Summer 2021 - Second Independence Referendum which hypothetically results in a YES vote (The previous timetable for Scotland to divorce itself from the rest of the UK was two years)
Summer 2023 - Scotland becomes and Independent country - it will either have a currency over which it has no control, or it will have to have established it's own brand new currency.
Summer 2023 - Scotland applies for membership of the EU - The EU will look at Scotland to measure suitability and compliance and advise Scotland on what must be achieved before membership can be applied for and for that application to be considered by each member state. (In the case of the Baltic States this process took 15 years)
Summer 2038 - Scotland finds itself an independent country?? and a member of whatever size, shape and form the EU has evolved into by 2038 which could mean that Scotland isn't independent at all.

Both Big Al and Keith A are perfectly correct in what they have said so far. Oh and just as an aside my first trip to Northern Ireland WAS to protect the "nationalist" Catholic population against the Ulster "unionists" and to oversee and ensure the disbanding and disarming of the RUC's B-Specials.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 05:19 AM

"Both Big Al and Keith A are perfectly correct in what they have said so far"
Both have made racist statements - Keith consistently so - no surprise that you support it
Nothing in your meaningless list makes them in any way correct
Brexit will Northern Ireland detrimentally - your meaningless list carefully skates around that one
It is this fact that has brought The North and Scotland to leaving the Union
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 05:35 AM

here we go- racism again!
its such a cop out way of taking on no criticism.

what's all this about terrorist connections? you keep trotting that one out.
like the other side are devoid of terrorist connections.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 05:41 AM

"here we go- racism again!"
Never gone away Al
You have just descriibed the role of the British as keeping the fighting Irish from killing each other
That is racist stereotyping which goes back as far as at least the 19th century - a favourite of 'Punch Magazine'
"what's all this about terrorist connections?"
The ruling party - the DUP, had traceable links to the terrorist UVF - and is actively supported by them
"the other side "
Which "other side" to you mean - please say the Southern Irish and make my "racist" point for me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 06:15 AM

BTW
The right's dependence on Unionist support lies in the title of the ruling party "the Conservative and Unionist Party"
Jim Carroll