I like the DUP’s William Humphrey. The fact that he doesn’t like me is unfortunate but then, not every love is reciprocated. I was on Raidió Uladh/Radio Ulster’s Talk Back yesterday with William, and I got the distinct impression he doesn’t like sharing air-space with me.
The subject under discussion was, should the name ‘Windsor Park’ be retained in the new stadium (using our money) that will be built there. Apparently there’s a barney between Linfield FC and the IFA about what their agreement says about this. The discussion could have confined itself to the legal ramifications of the case but a new stadium that has hopes for the future would be foolish if it tries to airbrush out its past.
Windsor Park is the home of Linfield FC and of the Northern Ireland soccer team. Linfield’s past is not a positive one in terms of sectarianism and violence. The most infamous case happened in the 1940s, when the Belfast Celtic centre-forward Jimmy Jones was attacked by Linfield fans and suffered a broken leg and other injuries – and Belfast Celtic ceased to exist. More recently there has been violence by Linfield fans – to take two examples – at Coleraine, and at Linfield vs Shelbourne in the Setanta Cup. Clearly Linfield have work to do to counter this image of being a club with an unhappy past. Changing the name of their stadium is such an opportunity: most Catholics/nationalists/republicans see Windsor Park as a place where Protestants/loyalist/unionists are welcome but not others.
The Northern Ireland team plays its games at Windsor Park. While it is true that the team includes Catholic/nationalist/republican players and their present manager is a Catholic, the Northern Ireland team has a similarly unhappy past. The sectarian chants of NI fans at Windsor over the years are notorious. Neil Lennon, who played for – did he captain? – the Northern Ireland team, received death threats and never played for NI again. Marie Jones’s play A Night in November is set on the infamous night when the Republic of Ireland played Northern Ireland for a place in the World Cup. Those few RoI supporters who travelled got a first-hand lesson in sectarianism: such was the hostility in the ground, they feared to cheer when RoI got the goal that took them to the World Cup finals. It’s also a fact that the great majority of NI fans come from the Protestant/loyalist/unionist community.
Given that background, you would think both Linfield and the Northern Ireland team would be eager to take the naming of the new stadium as an opportunity for a fresh start, a sign that both Linfield and the Northern Ireland team welcomed fans who are at present conspicuous by their absence.
When I mentioned the unhappy history of both Linfield and the Northern Ireland team in yesterday’s Talk Back, I was met with accusations from both William and from callers to the show. I was told I had sectarianized the naming of the park. WTF? If you draw attention to a history that is spattered with sectarianism, you are being sectarian?
Despite all that, I still like William (no, not Will Crawley, although I like him too – William Humphrey). The DUP MLA has a good speaking voice, he uses language well and I hope some day he’ll send the love back to me. Say you will, William.
Here’s the link to yesterday’s Talk Back. The interesting bit is from 4 mins approx to 40 mins approx. Bain sult as – Enjoy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0739kg6
I don’t doubt some people from Nat/Rep side of society do go to matches there. I’m not one of them. I did go to International’s there in the 1960s but not being from the PULC one was always fearful and that was before 1969.
As far as I am concerned the name Windsor can stay as a non customer of that particular “entertainment” industry it does not bother me.
A rose by any other name……
Without a doubt Jude those people at Windsor Park must be troublemakers in fact i would go as far as too say some of them might even have taken part in Boys Brigade Parades
The reason Linfield and bitter cousins Rangers play Catholic ‘s is that they wouldn’t be allowed to play in Europe because of the fair employment bill. ..how many backroom staff are employed by these two bastions of bigotry ?
I would hazzard a guess that there have been more Catholics that have played for Linfield (one team) than Protestants have played Gaa or Hurling in any club in Northern Ireland. Work that out Padraig! Bigotry? Bitter me thinks.
Yep ..it’s a funny thing .I never had any interest in football at all .Part of that was the “tribal” nature of the game.Oh ..I could watch someone with the skill of George Best all day but it ‘s all that other old bollocks that goes with the game that turns me right off. In Norneverland it’s probably worse than anywhere else when you mix in all that group bigotry . I’m not by nature a herd animal so standing in a crowded venue with all of that sounds like a bloody paranoid nightmare to me.
Jude, like many people from an irish/natinalist background , I cannot identify with the ‘Northern Ireland football team. What makes a football team a ‘national ‘ team? A national team has a national stadium, a national flag and a national anthem all of which unite their supporters in a shared sense of identity and pride. The NI team certainly has the trappings of a national team but is missing one key ingredient, a ‘Nation’ to represent.
It was only till one tuned into the wireless discussion, Esteemed Blogmeister, that one realized just how little one knew about Windsor Park.
And by extension, sadly, the soccer scene north of the Black Sow’s Dyke. Though it wasn’t always thus. One indeed has fond memories of the annual St. Patrick’s Day clash between the teams of the IFA and the FAI, not least the game in 1963 in a waterlogged Dalymount Park.
One recalls the standout player on the Norneverland team was one Wilbur Cush and how appropriate his surname was on that particularly wet and soggy night.
-Cush cois Life / Cush on Liffeyside.
Alas, that was a bilingual headline which, to one’s acute disappointment, singularly failed to make the cut in any of the Dubland newspapers that day. Which was a real pity, considering March 17 is the one day where it is allowable to flick Leprechaun into the linguistic mix of, erm, Darby O’Gilbert and Sullivan land .
Sort of.
Not the least of the dyslexic fascinations which this annual coming together of the IFA and the FAI was the Primate of Ireland and the Primate of All-Ireland knida vibe it gave off. But also for those with a colourfully numerical turn of mind, to see which of the Forty Shades of Green the ganseys of the two opposing teams would sport.
The song of that name, incidentally, was hugely popular in the early Sixties. An, erm, evergreen ballad which was both written and recorded by Johnny Cush, oops, Cash.
There was another source of endless enthrallment of the ineffable yet less than affable duopoly of the IFA and the FAI: geographical this time. That was the name of the man most responsible (allegedly) for personifying the stumbling block between uniting the 6 and the 26 counties.
-Harry H. Cavan.
The H. at centre back there, incidentally, stands for Hartrick. No, seriously. Hartrick, with two r’s. H. Hartrick Cavan was (factually) the very first blazer to extend the hand of welcome to one, S. Blatter on the latter’s first day in the F.I.F.A. before going on to blaze a trail of global glory.
Fast forward, to the mid-Nineties or thereabouts. As an illustration of how one’s knowledge of the IFA had ebbed in the meanwhile, since that memorable web-footed night in 1963, one will mention one specific instance. The location was a waiting room in, of all places, Government Buildings, Dublin 2 where The Perkin found oneself in the presence of A.N.Other.
Whose name escapes one at the mo, but one who bore a remarkable wary-eyed resemblance to Vladimir Putin, though that was a realisation which did not surface till many years later. He was extremely fidgety and incommunicative. He exuded the distinct aura of a stray settler who suddenly finds himself cut loose from the wagon train, deep in enemy territory, such as an Apache canyon. (Such innocence !)
For a few too-long tense moments, no words were exchanged. Then, suddenly, The Perkin had a lightbulb moment. He recalled that the stranger in a strange land was a big fan of Linfield F.C. This was all the mental cue one needed. In a tone of uber-nonchalance;
-I see where Mick Deegan is playing good stuff for Crusaders.
This had the immediate and desired effect:
-Aye.
-Make sure you send him back to us in the same condition we sent him up to you.
To say the fidgety visitor cracked a smile would be pushing it; more the ghost of a smile.
Mick Deegan was , of course, the stylishly effective wing back on the Dublin football team who had decided to take a Sabbatical from the game and try his hand at soccer. As practiced north of the Black Sow’s Dyke. Happily, the visitor was as good as his ghost of a smile and Mick Deegan eventually returned to base, undamaged goods.
He is to be seen these days as Leas-Bhainisteoir of the Dublin Football team, seated on the bench next to his Bainisteoir, Jim Gavin to whom he bears a remarkable resemblance, as much indeed as Billy Hutchinson (for it was he !) does to Vladimir Putin.
This managerial duo is a major reason why the Dublin team is so successful of late. For Gaelic football is a wargame in which both the aerial and ground battles are of equal importance. In real life, Jim Gavin is a pilot while Mick Deegan is a garage owner.
To conclude, where one commenced, with Windsor Park.
It was while listening to one of your references on the programme, EB, that one was convinced one knew for certain after whom the Park was named. Your reference to the RoI supporters who were so cowed by the hostile atmosphere that they refrained from even a cheer when their team scored the winning goal.
In this stadium of, erm, ‘Whispering Grass’ who else is commemorated in the name only, Windsor Davies.
Q.E.D.
But then, as each phoned-in verbal comment did contrive the studio to fill, each one of them like a porcupine quill, doubts began to raise their doughty heads. (One trusts, a Mhaistir Ionuin Blog, you get paid danger dosh for these radio appearances).
Till one began to reluctantly dismiss the claims of W. D. to the name and eventually whittle it down to two contrasting Windsors.
One Windsor associated with a House, the other with, erm, Furniture. And what Furniture ! The kind of furniture one normally associates with a doll’s house, not least a doll by the name of Barbie. Or, even a Dolly’s house, as in the House of Parton.
Yes, indeed, after much mature consideration , one was poised to opt for this particular Windsor, the one associated with furniture. What tipped the balance was this T-shirt one spotted in one’s local hostelry last night, with the following article of faith emblazoned on the front:
-Pele is good, Maradonna is better but Georgie is BEST !
No reasonable person could argue with that.
Nor indeed could any reasonable p. contest the claim that Windsor Park is named after the Shoreditch lass with Irish ancestry who had, after all – the clincher ! – a brief affair with G.B.
Indeed the only bone of contention here would be the adjective ‘brief’ to describe the affair which Barbara Windsor (for it is she!) had with East Belfast’s finest. Brief would appear to be a brief version of the actual reality. But the ‘less’ said about that the better.
-Say no more, Seymour.
Carry on Calling the Park after Babs !
–
Why not take a (sort of) leaf from the mighty Benfica`s book and call it the Stadium Of Shite? Just a thought…..
I could understand it if Windsor Park was named after the British royal family and that that might alienate some people from a Nationalist background, but, of course, the ground opened in 1905, when the name of the latter family was Saxe-Coburg-Goethe, the ground was built on part of the bog meadows and was named after the nearest thoroughfare to it, which I believe is/was Lower Windsor Avenue. Good job it wasn’t next to Daphne Street.
Good point Willie.
The British Royal Family’s real second name is Saxe-Coburg-Goethe or Gotha I once read.
Apparently they changed it in the aftermath of the First World War because its clearly a German second name and at that point in Britain the Germans were a despised and hated people. Obviously the Royal Family feared this hatred and quickly changed their name to something more “English”.
Even up to his death Sir Patrick Moore, the Astronomer and well known for hosting the space TV show “The Sky at Night” was very anti-German because his fiancé was killed during the Second World War when the Germans bombed Britain. He never married nor had children after her death. He even referred to Germans as “Krauts”. This was tolerated by the BBC because “he was born in a different era”.
(This has been forgotten by many people but Sir Patrick Moore opened the first observatory in Armagh in the 1950’s or 1960’s I believe. When he was here he was approached by the Orange Order, there was an Orange Hall right next to where he lived, who requested that no Catholics were to have any involvement in the Armagh Scout Movement he was secretary of. Sir Patrick was sickened by this request by the Orange men and left the North and never came back. He was also asked his religion in the local cricket club too. He said he wanted nothing to do with the sectarianism in the North of Ireland and was frustrated by the enforced division in youth clubs…..Just in case MT thinks I’m telling “porkies” this is easily proved by a google search)
“The reason Linfield and bitter cousins Rangers play Catholic ‘s is that they wouldn’t be allowed to play in Europe because of the fair employment bill. ..how many backroom staff are employed by these two bastions of bigotry ?”
Eh?
As I type this I haven’t listened to the radio discussion yet.
I have never been a fan or follower of local football teams, such as Linfield or Cliftonville, etc but I know Linfield could be regarded as just another Rangers football team in the sense that the club is steeped in a history of sectarian bigotry and has a large following consisting exclusively of Protestant Unionists/Loyalists.
I read and finished ROI coach Roy Keanes first autobiography just before Christmas and he dedicates a few pages about the time when he and the Republic of Ireland squad played Northern Ireland at Windsor Park for a place in the World Cup (It must be the same incident Jude refers to). Keane said the ROI players, especially the English born players like Andy Townsend, were baffled and shocked at the hatred and venom from the Northern Ireland fans.
I remember Keane wrote: “Andy Townsend turned to me and asked: Roy, what is all this about? while watching the crowd screaming fenian bastards and other abuse. I said to Andy: “How long have you got?” with a bitter laugh”.
Roy Keane said the Northern Ireland players were playing extremely rough and hard. He said the NI players, whom the ROI hammered in Dublin a year previously, had no chance of getting a place at the World Cup and were willing to break their legs in order to please the crowd and stop the Republic from getting to the World Cup.
Keane also goes on to describe Linfield, the local club which most NI fans would support. He called Linfield a “club of bigots” and refers to the time when Linfield signed their first Black player but he had to leave shortly after because he and his family (who came to watch him play) were subjected to racist abuse from Linfield fans. Keane also refers to an incident where (I think) the Linfield manager or senior coach said Catholics should be signed to the club. The coach had to resign due to the amount of abuse and threats he was getting. I think all this happened in the 1990’s.
So no, Linfield certainly doesn’t have a good reputation and nor does Windsor Park and thanks to the likes of Roy Keane, whose autobiography was a best seller, many English people know about it too.
—————————————————————-
If the IFA are serious about attracting Catholics to support the NI team then it would be a great opportunity to show that by renaming Windsor Park. Catholics make up half of the population here, we’re tax payers too, in fact soon enough there may be more Catholic tax payers than Protestant, so its our money being used to build a new stadium at Windsor.
When you look at the Irish Rugby team, the moves made to make the Irish Rugby team more neutral, appealing and accommodating to Unionists from the North, that is something the NI team should take lessons from if they are serious about change. The emblem of Irish Rugby isn’t the Tricolour, maybe the only National Rugby Team not to use its nations flag. The Irish national anthem is only played in Dublin, while Ireland’s Call, a neutral anthem is played everywhere, home and abroad. That shows the effort and dedication to accommodate Unionists from the North and I think its worked to a great extent.
I honestly don’t see the point of two Irish football teams, its ridiculous, it splits resources, talent, expertise, etc. That’s why I support one All Ireland team. I believe a combined Irish football team, based on the same system used by the Irish Rugby team, would actually be real contenders in winning trophies, tournaments, etc like the Irish Rugby Team is. Roy Keane, Michael O’Neill, Martin O’Neill and all their coaches working together would make a far stronger and better team.
—————————————————————
Is this the same William Humphrey that Republican commentator Chris Donnelly slaughtered on the Nolan TV Show 2 years ago? when they debated Camp Twaddell? (I’ll put the video below)
The main Unionist parties are still sticking to the same vain and failing tactic of trying to hold back the Nationalist tide. They are, yet again, harking back to a time when Unionism got its way no matter what. This mind set of “not an inch” must stem from the era of the Protestant Ascendancy. This absolute refusal to accommodate people of a different political view or religion despite being on the verge of being a minority. Any Unionist with a brain would consider it paramount to make Windsor Park and the Northern Ireland team appealing to Catholics. It’s just a matter of time before (if not already) the Northern Ireland team becomes the only national team in the World where the majority of the people in the state it represents don’t support it…..but this little fact seems to be lost on those within the DUP.
————————————————————————————–
Jude, I was once called a “bigot” on twitter by Unionists because I objected to Orange Order parades. I asked the question then and I’ll repeat it: “Does it make you a bigot if your against a bigoted organisation?”…..
Those who accused Jude of “sectarianizing the name of the Park” are those who turn a blind eye to the sectarian bigotry emitting from Windsor Park. They want to pretend there is no issue, the same way many Unionists today like to pretend that there was never any sectarianism and discrimination against the Catholic community here for decades.
In reality, many of those who accused Jude of sectarianism are the ones who simply don’t want to compromise, yet again the old “Not an inch” or “No Surrender” attitude. They want things their way and only their way. Thankfully we’re in 2016 and not 1916, so those days are over and some just have to get use to it….
“He called Linfield a “club of bigots” and refers to the time when Linfield signed their first Black player but he had to leave shortly after because he and his family (who came to watch him play) were subjected to racist abuse from Linfield fans. Keane also refers to an incident where (I think) the Linfield manager or senior coach said Catholics should be signed to the club. The coach had to resign due to the amount of abuse and threats he was getting. I think all this happened in the 1990’s”
Who was this black player and who was this coach? Methinks either Ryan or Roy is telling porkies.
Well it was in Roy Keanes autobiography MT and as I said I don’t have the slightest interest in local football, so why would I tell “porkies” about an incident that can be easily be disproved?…..
I suppose all the sectarianism from Linfield and its supporters is thousands of people telling “porkies”, including the cameras that recorded a lot of it?…..
“Well it was in Roy Keanes autobiography MT and as I said I don’t have the slightest interest in local football, so why would I tell “porkies” about an incident that can be easily be disproved?…..”
In thst case it’s Keane (or more likely his ghost writer) telling porkies as neither of the claimed incidents happened.
How do you know that, MT?
“How do you know that, MT?”
Because I’ve been a keen follower of local.football since the early 1980s.
Ah. That’d explain it, then…
“If the IFA are serious about attracting Catholics to support the NI team then it would be a great opportunity to show that by renaming Windsor Park.”
If the GAA are serious about attracting Protestants to support the Antrim team then it would be a great opportunity to show that by renaming Casement Park.
“The emblem of Irish Rugby isn’t the Tricolour, maybe the only National Rugby Team not to use its nations flag.”
That doesn’t make sense. The Ireland rugby team represents more than one jurisdiction, so why would it use the flag of only one of the jurisdictions it represents?
“I honestly don’t see the point of two Irish football teams, its ridiculous, it splits resources, talent, expertise, etc. That’s why I support one All Ireland team. I believe a combined Irish football team, based on the same system used by the Irish Rugby team, would actually be real contenders in winning trophies, tournaments, etc like the Irish Rugby Team is. Roy Keane, Michael O’Neill, Martin O’Neill and all their coaches working together would make a far stronger and better team.”
A combined British Isles team would do even better.
Roger Casement??
A British diplomat who fought for human rights around the globe.
That Casement?
“Roger Casement??
A British diplomat who fought for human rights around the globe.
That Casement?”
Windsor?
A district if Belfast that developed in the late Victoria period.
That Windsor?
PS. You do realise that Casement was also an Irish republican?
All Ireland team makes more sense and would indeed be a serious contender for future European or even world glory if the footballing talent of this divided country were united as a single team. As for your “British Isle” suggestion, the majority of football fans in the Island of Ireland would be happy to see a single team representative of this Irish isle as much as Scottish, Welsh and English fans are happy with their respective nations being represented at international level.
“All Ireland team makes more sense and would indeed be a serious contender for future European or even world glory if the footballing talent of this divided country were united as a single team.”
What makes you think that?
” As for your “British Isle” suggestion, the majority of football fans in the Island of Ireland would be happy to see a single team representative of this Irish isle as much as Scottish, Welsh and English fans are happy with their respective nations being represented at international level.”
The majority of NI fans wouldn’t.
“If the GAA are serious about attracting Protestants to support the Antrim team then it would be a great opportunity to show that by renaming Casement Park”
Why Casement Park? In that case why not make all stadiums/buildings/streets neutral? Like renaming the Kings Hall, thousands of streets here named after British Royalty, the town of Craigavon being named after a UVF Leader, etc I would agree with all venues/places being neutral including renaming Casement Park.
“That doesn’t make sense. The Ireland rugby team represents more than one jurisdiction, so why would it use the flag of only one of the jurisdictions it represents?”
But it does use the Irish Tricolour MT, its used at international events like at the Rugby World Cup. Even during the 6 Nations the Tricolour is flown when there’s games in Dublin. During the Rugby World Cup last September the Irish Rugby Team displayed the Tricolour along with the Ulster (9 county) flag and the Ulster 9 county flag doesn’t represent a jurisdiction.
The emblem of Irish Rugby is neutral in order to show a spirit of accommodation for Unionists, the IRFU could’ve easily just used the Tricolour. Of course such accommodation isn’t reciprocated 100 miles up the road from Dublin where Unionist run councils behave like mini 1960’s Stormont’s.
“A combined British Isles team would do even better”
The obvious issue there MT is that the English, the Welsh, the Scottish and of course the Irish don’t want a “British Isles team”. While the likes of England have 1 football team, Ireland has 2, which is stupid. Even the likes of George Best supported an All Ireland football team. In the most recent poll done by the Belfast Telegraph nearly 50% of Protestants supported an All Ireland football team.
If there was a “British Isles team” it would most probably be 95% English, with one or two Welsh and Irish players. The bulk of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish players would be in the reserves. So in reality it would just be another England team…..which no one wants…..
“Why Casement Park?”
Why Windsor Park?
” In that case why not make all stadiums/buildings/streets neutral? Like renaming the Kings Hall, thousands of streets here named after British Royalty, the town of Craigavon being named after a UVF Leader, etc I would agree with all venues/places being neutral including renaming Casement Park.”
Then why did you only complain about Windsor Park? And why would Windsor Park need to be renamed to make it neutral: in what way is Windsor not a neutral name?
“But it does use the Irish Tricolour MT”
So why did you say it doesn’t?
“The obvious issue there MT is that the English, the Welsh, the Scottish and of course the Irish don’t want a “British Isles team”. ”
Just like the Northern Irish don’t want an “all-Ireland team”.
“While the likes of England have 1 football team, Ireland has 2, which is stupid.”
Why is it stupid?
“If there was a “British Isles team” it would most probably be 95% English, with one or two Welsh and Irish players. The bulk of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish players would be in the reserves. So in reality it would just be another England team…..which no one wants”
A bit like an all-Ireland team, which would be dominated by Southerners.
And what have you against Southerners, MT? Some of the nicest people in Ireland. Ask my wife…
Just like the Northern Irish don’t want an “all-Ireland team”.
That is falsehood MT.
I am northern Irish and I want to see an all Ireland soccer team or even 2.
The current situation is not reflective of the community and is a sectarian and partitionist setup.
Both the FAI and IFA are 32 county organisations, both were entitled to choose players from anywhere in Ireland.
I believe it was the FAI who complained about the IFA poaching players which led to FIFA setting the jurisdictional boundaries.
These are not national boundaries however and I am sure the restrictions could easily be dropped if both organisations agreed.
The Northern Ireland team is a unionist / pro british team and reflects that community as outlined in the GFA.
There is also an Irish community in the north which has over 54% at school age according to census. This community is an all island community and the FAI represents their nation.
The current setup has led to intimidation of players from the north of the country who choose to play for their own nation rather than the loyalist football team.
Why should unionist desires for jurisdictional separation of national identities be imposed on us all?
This has to change.
“That is falsehood MT.
I am northern Irish and I want to see an all Ireland soccer team or even 2.”
You’re only one person.
“The current situation is not reflective of the community and is a sectarian and partitionist setup.”
It’s reflective of political reality. You must rue the day the Southerners broken away to create the partitonist set-up.
“The Northern Ireland team is a unionist / pro british team and reflects that community as outlined in the GFA.”
How do you know the political views of the team?
The GFA says nothing about the NI team.
“The current setup has led to intimidation of players from the north of the country who choose to play for their own nation rather than the loyalist football team.”
When was this?
“Why should unionist desires for jurisdictional separation of national identities be imposed on us all?”
For the same reason that nationalist desires for jurisdictional separation of national identities are imposed on us all. It’s called self-determination.
“This has to change”
It doesn’t.
“I am northern Irish and I want to see an all Ireland soccer team or even 2.”
You’re only one person.”
I would confidently say there would be a majority of football fans support an all island team.
GAA is by far the biggest supported sport in ireland north and south by gate attendance figures alone.
Rugby would be the next most popular sport here with soccer further on down the line.
Until there is a border poll, you cannot say with any confidence or credibility that there is a majority want partition, british identity or a 6 county football team.
“It’s reflective of political reality. You must rue the day the Southerners broken away to create the partitonist set-up.”
So you are basing support for the NI soccer team on support for political parties???
There are a few issues with that.
1
I would say the majority of those who do not vote are more likely to be soccer supporters and followers and that the majority of those that do vote, have no interest in soccer whatsoever.
2
What has political reality got to do with either national identity or sporting preferences?
As for the partitonist set-up, yes. It was before my time and I have never known anything else but I am in no doubt that partition was wrong and has done neither part of the island any favours.
At least is can be undone by the mechanism outlined in the GFA, now we will just have to make it happen.
“The Northern Ireland team is a unionist / pro british team and reflects that community as outlined in the GFA.”
How do you know the political views of the team?
Exactly, the team promotes only a unionist / pro british identity as I said, the team stand to the loyalist ulster banner and english national anthem.
I would say with confidence that these are most certainly not reflective of catholic / nationalist members of the team, hence my assertion that the team itself is sectarian in its setup.
“The GFA says nothing about the NI team.”
It doesn’t as far as I know, but it does state clearly that people from the 6 counties can identify with irish, british or both identities. Thus, while the NI team does not conform to the GFA, it shall remain sectarian in nature in my eyes.
“Why should unionist desires for jurisdictional separation of national identities be imposed on us all?”
For the same reason that nationalist desires for jurisdictional separation of national identities are imposed on us all. It’s called self-determination. ”
Partition was a denial of self-determination unjustly implemented under threats of violence and civil war.
“This has to change”
It doesn’t.”
It does and it will.
The first step will be a border poll which will be carried out within 3 years.
Only then will we be able to say with any confidence what the timeline for unification will likely to be.
“So you are basing support for the NI soccer team on support for political parties???”
Sorry, but I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
“What has political reality got to do with either national identity or sporting preferences?”
National teams usually reflect political realities and most people support the national team of the jurisdiction in which they live.
“Exactly, the team promotes only a unionist / pro british identity as I said, the team stand to the loyalist ulster banner and english national anthem.
I would say with confidence that these are most certainly not reflective of catholic / nationalist members of the team, hence my assertion that the team itself is sectarian in its setup.”
The Catholic manager and players would probably disagree.
“It doesn’t as far as I know, but it does state clearly that people from the 6 counties can identify with irish, british or both identities. Thus, while the NI team does not conform to the GFA, it shall remain sectarian in nature in my eyes.”
How does the NI team “not conform to the GFA”?
“Partition was a denial of self-determination unjustly implemented under threats of violence and civil war.”
It wasn’t. Rather the opposite: it was a facilitation of self-determination.
“So you are basing support for the NI soccer team on support for political parties???”
Sorry, but I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.”
I am saying that neither of us can know whether there is more support in the 6 counties among soccer fans for the IFA 6 county Ireland team or the FAI Ireland national team and that you cannot assume that election results reflect.
Only a border poll could confirm this one way or another.
“National teams usually reflect political realities and most people support the national team of the jurisdiction in which they live.”
The Irish nation is the whole of the island, the 6 county team does not reflect any nation that has an undisputed territory or an undivided community.
“Exactly, the team promotes only a unionist / pro british identity as I said, the team stand to the loyalist ulster banner and english national anthem.
I would say with confidence that these are most certainly not reflective of catholic / nationalist members of the team, hence my assertion that the team itself is sectarian in its setup.”
The Catholic manager and players would probably disagree. ”
Really, I would like to hear Michael O Neill or any catholic / nationalist state they see the loyalist ulster banner or the english national anthem as reflective of their identity.
If anything I expect he would say it is a hindrance to him getting players from than community.
“It doesn’t as far as I know, but it does state clearly that people from the 6 counties can identify with irish, british or both identities. Thus, while the NI team does not conform to the GFA, it shall remain sectarian in nature in my eyes.”
How does the NI team “not conform to the GFA”?
In what way does the team identify to irish identity which is recognised as equal to that of british according to the GFA?
“Partition was a denial of self-determination unjustly implemented under threats of violence and civil war.”
It wasn’t. Rather the opposite: it was a facilitation of self-determination.”
So should the UK be partitioned so part stays in the EU and part leaves as that would be the facilitation of self-determination according to you?
“I am saying that neither of us can know whether there is more support in the 6 counties among soccer fans for the IFA 6 county Ireland team or the FAI Ireland national team and that you cannot assume that election results reflect.”
Why are you mentioning political parties and election results??
“Only a border poll could confirm this one way or another.”
What would a “border poll” confirm about football??
“The Irish nation is the whole of the island, the 6 county team does not reflect any nation that has an undisputed territory or an undivided community.”
That’s fantastic but it still remains the case that national teams usually reflect political realities and most people support the national team of the jurisdiction in which they live.
“Really, I would like to hear Michael O Neill or any catholic / nationalist state they see the loyalist ulster banner or the english national anthem as reflective of their identity.”
I doubt any Protestant /unionist either would state the English national anthem as reflective of their identity.
But at least you agree that Catholic managers and players wouldn’t say the team was sectarian.
“In what way does the team identify to irish identity which is recognised as equal to that of british according to the GFA?”
The fact that it represents part of Ireland, contains Irish players, and uses Irish symbols.
But you didn’t answer the question: how does the NI team “not conform to the GFA”?
“So should the UK be partitioned so part stays in the EU and part leaves as that would be the facilitation of self-determination according to you?”
How would that be a facilitation of self-determination and when did I say it would be?
I find it very difficult to have a conversation with you MT.
To say we have crossed wires is an understatement but if I stick with it I get what you mean eventually.
So when you said the NI team is reflective of the political reality, you are not interested in the personal preferences of the people within the jurisdiction, just plain an simple, we are living under british rule and therefore the team is a british team.
I suppose that is a fair enough position, but it also explains why such a large proportion of the population support the FAI team instead.
I don’t really have a problem with that. I doubt I will ever have any affiliation with the northern ireland brand.
“I doubt any Protestant /unionist either would state the English national anthem as reflective of their identity. ”
Then why do the DUP break out in song with English national anthem every elections and tv camera opportunity?
“But you didn’t answer the question: how does the NI team “not conform to the GFA”?”
The GFA acknowledges 2 identities on this island, british and irish.
The Rugby team has made an effort to accommodate both communities and I would say is reflective of the GFA.
The NI soccer team clearly also contains people from both communities, what effort has it made to accommodate both traditions?
I would have no interest in whether they should and I have no idea whether it would make a difference even if they did, but certainly to date I would not say it has made similar efforts to reflect the GFA as the rugby team has.
Would you MT?
“So should the UK be partitioned so part stays in the EU and part leaves as that would be the facilitation of self-determination according to you?”
How would that be a facilitation of self-determination and when did I say it would be?”
You refer to self-determination for partition in Ireland coming from the 1918 elections. To my knowledge, the elections were fought by parties who wanted to remain in the UK parliament, the unionist party and the IPP and by Sinn Fein who stood on an independence platform ad on this won an overall majority.
How does that equate to self-determination to participation?
The only way I could think off was by taking a sub section of the results by area and ignoring the minority within that area who votes with the majority across the jurisdiction.
Perhaps if you could explain to me how you feel the 1918 election results supported or even justified partition and dividing the country across sectarian lines?
I am really struggling to understand where you are coming from on that.
“Then why do the DUP break out in song with English national anthem every elections and tv camera opportunity?”
I’ve never seen them do that. I think you’re lying.
“The GFA acknowledges 2 identities on this island, british and irish.The Rugby team has made an effort to accommodate both communities and I would say is reflective of the GFA.The NI soccer team clearly also contains people from both communities, what effort has it made to accommodate both traditions?”
I’ll ask again: how does the NI team ” not conform to the GFA “?
‘You refer to self-determination for partition in Ireland coming from the 1918 elections. To my knowledge, the elections were fought by parties who wanted to remain in the UK parliament, the unionist party and the IPP and by Sinn Fein who stood on an independence platform ad on this won an overall majority. How does that equate to self-determination to participation?”
I don’t know what “self-determination to participation” means, but the unionist people voted with a large majority for a separate jurisdiction outside an all-Ireland state and within the UK.
“I don’t know what “self-determination to participation” means, but the unionist people voted with a large majority for a separate jurisdiction outside an all-Ireland state and within the UK.”
I meant partition.
There has never been a vote for or against partition.
I think it is time we had one.
“I meant partition.
There has never been a vote for or against partition.”
Eh? A vote for a separate jurisdiction is by definition a vote for “partition”.
“Eh? A vote for a separate jurisdiction is by definition a vote for “partition”.”
MT, there has never been a vote to have two jurisdictions in Ireland.
A majority voted for independence in 1918, you cannot sub divide the results to justify partitioning up the country and using gerrymandering to attempt to make a minority an artificial majority in a new statelet.
That is not democracy.
Neither was the use of threats of violence and civil war to push it through.
“MT, there has never been a vote to have two jurisdictions in Ireland.”
There have been many such votes. At least since 1918, unionist candidates have put themselves forward on a ticket of either supporting the creation of, or maintaining, a separate jurisdiction.
“A majority voted for independence in 1918, you cannot sub divide the results to justify partitioning up the country and using gerrymandering to attempt to make a minority an artificial majority in a new statelet.”
But a majority in the north-east voted for a separate jurisdiction.
“That is not democracy.”
I’m afraid it is: facilitating people’s democratically expressed wishes.
“”A majority voted for independence in 1918, you cannot sub divide the results to justify partitioning up the country and using gerrymandering to attempt to make a minority an artificial majority in a new statelet.”
But a majority in the north-east voted for a separate jurisdiction. ”
Democracy cannot be broken down into sub sections so minorities can have their way MT.
I will say again, that is not democracy but the subverting of democracy.
If there is a majority vote for a brexit but a majority in 4 counties in the north east of england have a majority vote in favour of staying in the EU, would that be justification for partioning of England or would you expect there would be a referendum on such a split where the pros and cons are first debated in public so the electorate can make an informed choice?.
“I will say again, that is not democracy but the subverting of democracy.”
How can facilitating democratically expressed wishes be the subverting of democracy?
“If there is a majority vote for a brexit but a majority in 4 counties in the north east of england have a majority vote in favour of staying in the EU, would that be justification for partioning of England or would you expect there would be a referendum on such a split where the pros and cons are first debated in public so the electorate can make an informed choice?”
Why would a vote in relation to EU membership be “justification for partitioning of Englsnd”??
“How can facilitating democratically expressed wishes be the subverting of democracy? ”
The 1918 election was to stand for Westminster, only one party stood on an independence platform and they won a clear majority within Ireland.
Just because the unionist party had a majority in 4 counties out of 32 is not a democratic mandate for those counties to leave the country. There was still a sizable minority within those 4 counties who voted with he overall majority.
That is not a democratically expressed wish for dividing the country and therefore was clearly the subverting of democracy.
“Why would a vote in relation to EU membership be “justification for partitioning of Englsnd”??”
I don’t think it would just as the referendum in Scotland didn’t partition Scotland. It is also a fact that had it not been for threats of civil war and unionist violence. Ireland would not have been divided either.
But explain to me how what happened in Ireland was any different. A clear overall majority voted in preference for independence. How can losing 4 out of 32 counties justify them breaking away and still only leaving a 70% majority while disenfranchising 30% of the people in those counties who voted with the majority?
I think you know very well what I am saying but are simply incapable of acknowledging it.
“The 1918 election was to stand for Westminster, only one party stood on an independence platform and they won a clear majority within Ireland.”
But those standing for a separate jurisdiction outside an all-Ireland republic won a clear majority in the north-east.
“Just because the unionist party had a majority in 4 counties out of 32 is not a democratic mandate for those counties to leave the country.”
Why not?
“There was still a sizable minority within those 4 counties who voted with he overall majority.”
And?
“That is not a democratically expressed wish for dividing the country and therefore was clearly the subverting of democracy.”
Yes it was and clearly it wasn’t.
“Why would a vote in relation to EU membership be “justification for partitioning of Englsnd”??”
“I don’t think it would just as the referendum in Scotland didn’t partition Scotland. ”
Then why are you suggesting that it could be?
“It is also a fact that had it not been for threats of civil war and unionist violence. Ireland would not have been divided either.”
It is also a fact that had it not been for actual nationalist violence, there would have been no Irish independence. And your point?
“But explain to me how what happened in Ireland was any different. ”
Any different to what?
“A clear overall majority voted in preference for independence.”
A clear overall majority in the north-east voted in preference for exclusion from an all-Ireland state.
“How can losing 4 out of 32 counties justify them breaking away and still only leaving a 70% majority while disenfranchising 30% of the people in those counties who voted with the majority?”
Nobody was disenfranchised.
“I think you know very well what I am saying but are simply incapable of acknowledging it.”
Saying about what?
“But those standing for a separate jurisdiction outside an all-Ireland republic won a clear majority in the north-east. ”
In 1918, no one stood for a separate jurisdiction outside an all-Ireland republic as none existed. Ireland was one country and the elections were British general elections for Westminster. Only Sinn Fein stood on an independence platform and they won a clear majority, not once but three times.
“There was still a sizable minority within those 4 counties who voted with he overall majority.”
And?”
Exactly how I feel about the unionist minority wanting partition. It should never have happened.
“It is also a fact that had it not been for threats of civil war and unionist violence. Ireland would not have been divided either.”
It is also a fact that had it not been for actual nationalist violence, there would have been no Irish independence. And your point?”
Well, I actually agree with you MT, though there are others who believe violence was not necessary.
You do realise that you are making a case supporting violence to achieve independence though?
“Nobody was disenfranchised.”
Irish citizens in the north were and are disenfranchised.
I don’t feel like I even have a country. Certainly not one I feel part off and I am not even sure if I any longer want to be part off.
I certainly don’t want to have anything to do with Britain.
How is that not disenfranchised?
“In 1918, no one stood for a separate jurisdiction outside an all-Ireland republic as none existed. ”
Yes they did. The policy of Ulster Unionists from 1912 was for a separate jurisdiction.
“Ireland was one country and the elections were British general elections for Westminster. Only Sinn Fein stood on an independence platform and they won a clear majority, not once but three times.”
Unionists won a clear majority three times in the north-east.
“Exactly how I feel about the unionist minority wanting partition. It should never have happened.”
The people decided differently.
“Well, I actually agree with you MT, though there are others who believe violence was not necessary.
You do realise that you are making a case supporting violence to achieve independence though?”
You’re arguing against the creation of a separate jurisdiction because of threats of violence. By your own logic therefore you’re arguing against the creation of an all-Ireland because of the use of violence.
“Irish citizens in the north were and are disenfranchised.”
They weren’t and aren’t.
“I don’t feel like I even have a country. Certainly not one I feel part off and I am not even sure if I any longer want to be part off.
I certainly don’t want to have anything to do with Britain.”
Yet you want a greater number of people to feel the same? That’s simply hypocrisy.
“How is that not disenfranchised?”
Because “not feeling one has a country” isn’t disenfranchisement.
“In 1918, no one stood for a separate jurisdiction outside an all-Ireland republic as none existed. ”
Yes they did. The policy of Ulster Unionists from 1912 was for a separate jurisdiction.”
Even if it was, the electoral boundary was 32 counties MT, not 4 and it was the Irish unionist party who stood and did so throughout Ireland, not just in ulster never mind 4 counties of ulster?
You are picking out sectors where the result suited your thinking and trying to justify the imposing the will of that section over the other people living there who in turn were then disenfranchised from the nation they belong to.
“How is that not disenfranchised?”
Because “not feeling one has a country” isn’t disenfranchisement”
How is it not, I am an Irish citizen living in the part of Ireland that was denied its independence and as a result I am not able to vote for the president of Ireland for example who constitutionally represents the whole island.
I am one of many and we are living proof that what happened then was wrong.
“Even if it was, the electoral boundary was 32 counties MT, not 4 and it was the Irish unionist party who stood and did so throughout Ireland, not just in ulster never mind 4 counties of ulster?”
By that logic the electoral boundary was whole UK. Unionists in Ulster supported a separate jurisdiction.
“You are picking out sectors where the result suited your thinking and trying to justify the imposing the will of that section over the other people living there who in turn were then disenfranchised from the nation they belong to.”
You call it “picking out sectors”, other more educated and reasonable people call it drawing a boundary to best reflect the wishes of the people either side.
“How is it not”
Because disenfranchisement means denying somebody a vote and everyone has a vote whether they “feel they have a country” or not.
” I am an Irish citizen living in the part of Ireland that was denied its independence and as a result I am not able to vote for the president of Ireland for example who constitutionally represents the whole island.”
Then take it up with the Southern Irish people who are the ones who decide these things.
“Even if it was, the electoral boundary was 32 counties MT, not 4 and it was the Irish unionist party who stood and did so throughout Ireland, not just in ulster never mind 4 counties of ulster?”
By that logic the electoral boundary was whole UK. Unionists in Ulster supported a separate jurisdiction. ”
Rubbish. Ireland had its own number of MPs that could be elected as did Scotland and tje other jurisdictions within the UK.
For goodness sake MT, it was the united kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. 4 nations.
“You are picking out sectors where the result suited your thinking and trying to justify the imposing the will of that section over the other people living there who in turn were then disenfranchised from the nation they belong to.”
You call it “picking out sectors”, other more educated and reasonable people call it drawing a boundary to best reflect the wishes of the people either side.”
Sounds more like gerrymandering to me.
As for being more educated. I do have a degree though I accept many others these days are better educated.
“How is it not”
Because disenfranchisement means denying somebody a vote and everyone has a vote whether they “feel they have a country” or not. ”
The constitution of ireland covers the whole of this island. I am denied a vote in referendums to amend it though I am an Irish citizen and born and lived all my life on this island as have generations of my family?
That just doesn’t seem fair to me.
” I am an Irish citizen living in the part of Ireland that was denied its independence and as a result I am not able to vote for the president of Ireland for example who constitutionally represents the whole island.”
Then take it up with the Southern Irish people who are the ones who decide these things.”
Yes we should and I hope Sinn Fein will.
“Rubbish. Ireland had its own number of MPs that could be elected as did Scotland and tje other jurisdictions within the UK.
For goodness sake MT, it was the united kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. 4 nations.”
It was a UK election. The UK was a unitary state.
“Sounds more like gerrymandering to me.”
Drawing a boundary to best reflect the wishes of the people either side sounds like gerrymandering to you? Clearly you don’t know what gerrymandering I’d. It’s completely the opposite of gerrymandering.
“As for being more educated. I do have a degree though I accept many others these days are better educated.”
You come across as very naive and ignorant and unable to engage in reasoning.
“The constitution of ireland covers the whole of this island. I am denied a vote in referendums to amend it though I am an Irish citizen and born and lived all my life on this island as have generations of my family? That just doesn’t seem fair to me.”
Take it up with the Southern people. It’s their business who they want to extend their franchise to. Though it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to retrofit it to those who actually live in the country.
“It was a UK election. The UK was a unitary state.”
It still had separate electoral boundaries, of which 32 counties of Ireland was one.
“Drawing a boundary to best reflect the wishes of the people either side sounds like gerrymandering to you? Clearly you don’t know what gerrymandering I’d. It’s completely the opposite of gerrymandering. ”
The boundary was not reflective of the wishes of the people either side, it was done to keep protestants in control of the industrial and wealthiest part of the country. 100% of businesses were owned by protestants. Of the people in those 4 counties, 30% were catholic yet protestants had 40 pounds to Catholics 1 pound share of the wealth.
The boundary was for purely selfish reasons and backfired when the ship building industry collapsed shortly after partition which meant the north has fallen behind the rest of the country in terms of economy.
“You come across as very naive and ignorant and unable to engage in reasoning. ”
You have already said you are better educated than me but I do not agree that I am ignorant or unable to engage in reasoning.
“Take it up with the Southern people. It’s their business who they want to extend their franchise to.”
So you accept partition has disenfranchised Irish citizens in the north, you just don’t care so long as unionists have things their way.
Not much has changed over the last century within unionism.
As Mike said, you are on the wrong side of history.
“It still had separate electoral boundaries, of which 32 counties of Ireland was one.”
The electoral boundaries were constituencies. Ireland wasn’t a constituency.
“The boundary was not reflective of the wishes of the people either side, it was done to keep protestants in control of the industrial and wealthiest part of the country. 100% of businesses were owned by protestants. Of the people in those 4 counties, 30% were catholic yet protestants had 40 pounds to Catholics 1 pound share of the wealth.”
Broadly it was. The majority on the southern side wanted to be in an independent state and the majority on the northern side wanted to be in a separate jurisdiction and remain in the UK.
“The boundary was for purely selfish reasons and backfired when the ship building industry collapsed shortly after partition which meant the north has fallen behind the rest of the country in terms of economy.”
What nonsense! If that were true, then these wealth Protestants would have sought to join the South after the collapse of the shipbuilding industry.
“You have already said you are better educated than me but I do not agree that I am ignorant or unable to engage in reasoning.”
Your posts here indicate otherwise.
“So you accept partition has disenfranchised Irish citizens in the north, you just don’t care so long as unionists have things their way.”
No. Everyone living in the north, whether a Southern citizen or not, has the vote.
“The electoral boundaries were constituencies. Ireland wasn’t a constituency.”
Ireland was the national constituency which was had to elect 105 MPs over its local constituencies throughout the country.
Constituencies cannot make national decisions such as redrawing national boundaries.
Britain was wrong to enforce this, they resisted it but eventually backed down.
“The majority on the southern side wanted to be in an independent state and the majority on the northern side wanted to be in a separate jurisdiction and remain in the UK.”
No they didn’t, the majority of the country over all wanted an independent country, all 32 counties.
If you are trying to say the 26 counties wanted their own state and 6 counties wanted a separate state, this is unionist fantasy.
Partition was wrong, it came about over threats of violence and actual violence.
It subverted democracy and went against the wishes of the majority of the country.
“Ireland was the national constituency which was had to elect 105 MPs over its local constituencies throughout the country.”
There was no such thing as a “national constituency”.
“Constituencies cannot make national decisions such as redrawing national boundaries.
Britain was wrong to enforce this, they resisted it but eventually backed down.”
People make such decisions.
“No they didn’t, the majority of the country over all wanted an independent country, all 32 counties.”
Not in the north-east they didn’t.
“If you are trying to say the 26 counties wanted their own state and 6 counties wanted a separate state, this is unionist fantasy.”
I wonder why they voted for independence if they didn’t want it. And I wonder why unionists voted for a separate jurisdiction if they didn’t want it. Strange.
“Partition was wrong, it came about over threats of violence and actual violence.”
It wasn’t wrong. And if your reasoning is it was wrong because of threats of violence and actual violence then you must also consider independence wrong.
“It subverted democracy and went against the wishes of the majority of the country.”
It didn’t. On the contrary it facilitated democracy
“Britain was wrong to enforce this, they resisted it but eventually backed down.”
People make such decisions. ”
They did not want to enforce partition, unionists threatened civil war and violence if they didn’t get it.
They mutinied against Britain to show they were serious and when they would not accept it on a temporary basis eventually Britain backed down and enforced partition through military occupation which remains to this day.
Time to go.
“the majority of the country over all wanted an independent country, all 32 counties.”
Not in the north-east they didn’t. ”
30% of the north east did and a majority overall.
“I wonder why they voted for independence if they didn’t want it. And I wonder why unionists voted for a separate jurisdiction if they didn’t want it. Strange.”
There was 32 county majority vote for independence not for a 26 county state with 6 counties remaining under British rule.
“Partition was wrong, it came about over threats of violence and actual violence.”
It wasn’t wrong. And if your reasoning is it was wrong because of threats of violence and actual violence then you must also consider independence wrong.
The subversion of democracy was wrong and led to civil war. Democracy is an accepted means of avoiding conflict and until Ireland is given the opportunity to determine its own future, democracy in Ireland remains subverted.
“It subverted democracy and went against the wishes of the majority of the country.”
It didn’t. On the contrary it facilitated democracy”
It facilitated British unionism, not democracy.
“The British state ran a 25-year murder campaign and thanks to the efforts of republicans we no longer have the killings.”
It didn’t. But if you’re referring to collusion, the reason it doesn’t happen anymore is because republicans and loyalists ended their campaigns.””
No, I am saying the conflict was started by unionists and backed up by the British army.
Loyalists were used as tools or pawns in the early days. It wasn’t collusion, it was direct instruction.
When the PIRA hit back, Britain went to war, most likely thinking it would be training for urban warfare, but got more than they bargained for.
When they realised it would not be easy to flatten their enemy who come from a defenceless population so close to home which meant the tactics they got away with over seas could not be used, they turned it into a dirty propaganda based conflict and the British state led the way. That is when direct instruction turned into covert operations and collusion with instructions and intelligence reports safely under lock and key of national security.
The whole dirty war was run by British intelligence and they are still recruiting and still have significant numbers on British payroll within dissident and criminal groupings.
The British state ran the 25-year murder campaign.
“No, I am saying the conflict was started by unionists and backed up by the British army.
Loyalists were used as tools or pawns in the early days. It wasn’t collusion, it was direct instruction.”
Presumably you have evidence for these claims? LOL
“When the PIRA hit back, Britain went to war, most likely thinking it would be training for urban warfare, but got more than they bargained for.”
“When they realised it would not be easy to flatten their enemy who come from a defenceless population so close to home which meant the tactics they got away with over seas could not be used, they turned it into a dirty propaganda based conflict and the British state led the way. That is when direct instruction turned into covert operations and collusion with instructions and intelligence reports safely under lock and key of national security.The whole dirty war was run by British intelligence and they are still recruiting and still have significant numbers on British payroll within dissident and criminal groupings.The British state ran the 25-year murder campaign.”
Goodness. Who told you all this?
“Presumably you have evidence for these claims? LOL ”
Official Inquiries by both states have produced lots of evidence yes, most of it is not available to legal teams as it is redacted or locked away under national security. But there are countless resources based on the findings what have been released, witness statements and extensive research, that there are very few academics or even politicians prepared to deny this any more.
That is the truth of what happened and it will come out. All you can do is delay it.
OK, so direct me to the evidence that supports your claims that:
1. The British Army “backed up” unionists in starting “the conflict”.
2. Loyalists were used as “tools or pawns in the early days”.
3. There was no collusion: rather “direct instruction”.
“OK, so direct me to the evidence that supports your claims that:
1. The British Army “backed up” unionists in starting “the conflict”.
2. Loyalists were used as “tools or pawns in the early days”.
3. There was no collusion: rather “direct instruction”.”
1
The british army came over to restore order from loyalists attacking nationalists.
After a few months, they became a buffer zone, a role in which they were clearly not comfortable.
When the IRA started to retaliate, they found a target they could identify with and made it the focus of their campaign which ignited the conflict.
It was unionists who invited them over, it was unionist violence that they were needed in the first place and it was unionist aggression that forced an IRA response so I would say very few reasonable people would disagree with that.
2
I suggest you go read up on Robert Nairac for starters
3
In the early 70s the british army worked directly with all loyalist groups, UDA, UFF and UVF and didn’t try to hide it
Collusion was endemic and is still on-going with MI5 still actively recruiting and active here today
“The british army came over to restore order from loyalists attacking nationalists. After a few months, they became a buffer zone, a role in which they were clearly not comfortable. When the IRA started to retaliate, they found a target they could identify with and made it the focus of their campaign which ignited the conflict. It was unionists who invited them over, it was unionist violence that they were needed in the first place and it was unionist aggression that forced an IRA response so I would say very few reasonable people would disagree with that.”
That’s not evidence. It’s a distorted misrepresentation. Can you provide a reliable source to support your claim thst the British Army “backed up” unionists in starting ” the conflict “?
“I suggest you go read up on Robert Nairac for starters”
How does that mean loyalists were used as ” tools or pawns in the early days”?
“In the early 70s the british army worked directly with all loyalist groups, UDA, UFF and UVF and didn’t try to hide it”
Simply repeating claims isn’t providing evidence. What evidence are you relying on for your claim that there was “no collusion only direct instruction”?
“Collusion was endemic and is still on-going with MI5 still actively recruiting and active here today”
So now you’re saying there was collusion? You’re contradicting yourself.
Collusion wasn’t endemic. Allegations relate only to Special Branch and other small intelligence units.
“That’s not evidence. It’s a distorted misrepresentation. Can you provide a reliable source to support your claim thst the British Army “backed up” unionists in starting ” the conflict “? ”
Nothing I could do would convince you MT, if anyone is interested, what I am saying is that they should research it for themselves and make their own minds up.
There are enough news articles and online reports on the subject. Not like you have to leave the house to research things these days.
“Nothing I could do would convince you MT, if anyone is interested, what I am saying is that they should research it for themselves and make their own minds up. There are enough news articles and online reports on the subject. Not like you have to leave the house to research things these days.”
So you can’t cite even one single source to back up your claims.
I didn’t think you could.
“A bit like an all-Ireland team, which would be dominated by Southerners.”
Hardly, it would still be aiming for players from the premier league.
Most that make it to that level will choose to play for the Ireland team rather than the 6 county sub division team.
Yes, you would have less of the under experienced players reaching the team but the nation would have the best team available which would be in the best interests of the sport.
Why do we want integration at schools but segregation in soccer while most other sports apart are organised on an all island basis?
“The electoral boundaries were constituencies. Ireland wasn’t a constituency.”
Just to clarify.
If you believe that border boundaries can be redrawn over constituency level results, do you think it is ok then for constituencies with nationalist majorities who want to be part of the republic to do so now?
“The boundary was not reflective of the wishes of the people either side, it was done to keep protestants in control of the industrial and wealthiest part of the country. 100% of businesses were owned by protestants. Of the people in those 4 counties, 30% were catholic yet protestants had 40 pounds to Catholics 1 pound share of the wealth.”
Broadly it was. The majority on the southern side wanted to be in an independent state and the majority on the northern side wanted to be in a separate jurisdiction and remain in the UK.”
If this was constituency based, then why were Fermanagh and Tyrone constituencies which had nationalist majorities not excluded in the border redrawing as they clearly wanted to be part of the new republic?
Also, if you are saying it is simply bad luck because of a unionist majority in 4 of the 6 counties, then how is that different from saying bad luck to unionists as there was a majority in 28 of the 32 counties for independance?
Partition was nothing more than pure sectarian bigotry.
“If you believe that border boundaries can be redrawn over constituency level results, do you think it is ok then for constituencies with nationalist majorities who want to be part of the republic to do so now?”
I’m not aware of any “costituencies” that support repartition. But I’m not opposed to it in principle.
“If this was constituency based, then why were Fermanagh and Tyrone constituencies which had nationalist majorities not excluded in the border redrawing as they clearly wanted to be part of the new republic?”
It wasn’t constituency based. It was county based. Fermanagh and Tyrone were included as a compromise between four counties and nine and to strengthen an agricultural base.
“Also, if you are saying it is simply bad luck because of a unionist majority in 4 of the 6 counties, then how is that different from saying bad luck to unionists as there was a majority in 28 of the 32 counties for independance?”
The difference is unionists were a majority in those areas whereas nationalists were a minority.
“Partition was nothing more than pure sectarian bigotry.”
By that argument so would an all-Ireland state.
“The difference is unionists were a majority in those areas whereas nationalists were a minority.”
But that is a circular argument, you have just zoomed in to a microcosm of the same result to reverse it in your favour.
There was a democratic vote and a majority wanted independence.
Break it down to counties and yes, there were 4 counties out of 32 who disagreed, but within those 4 counties. 30% also wanted independence.
So it is not ok for unionists to be a minority but it is ok for Catholics who were also treated poorly in those counties to be the minority and suffer under unionist misrule even though they still made up 30%? Lets just discriminate to keep them down and when they started asking for civil rights in the 60s, lets try to drive them out?
Your intransigence is unacceptable.
“But that is a circular argument, you have just zoomed in to a microcosm of the same result to reverse it in your favour.”
How is it a circular argument? Do you even know what a circular argument is?
“There was a democratic vote and a majority wanted independence.”
Not in the north-east they didn’t.
“Break it down to counties and yes, there were 4 counties out of 32 who disagreed, but within those 4 counties. 30% also wanted independence.”
And?
“So it is not ok for unionists to be a minority but it is ok for Catholics who were also treated poorly in those counties to be the minority and suffer under unionist misrule even though they still made up 30%? Lets just discriminate to keep them down and when they started asking for civil rights in the 60s, lets try to drive them out?”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue. If you think it’s wrong to have minorities then the only solution is mass population movements. Is that what you think should have happened?
“Your intransigence is unacceptable.”
I don’t have any intransigence.
“How is it a circular argument? Do you even know what a circular argument is?”
It is where both sides of an argument cancel each other out.
If the reason for redrawing the boundaries is because there would be a majority want something else in a sub section of the result, then where do you stop? Why not look at cities, towns, streets and keep it going? It will always be possible to carve up results into smaller subsections to subvert the overall result.
“There was a democratic vote and a majority wanted independence.”
Not in the north-east they didn’t. ”
That does not change the fact that an overall majority in Ireland wanted independence for Ireland.
You will never get 100% in any referendum and democracy is going with a majority. The losing minority should have accepted the will of the people of Ireland.
“If you think it’s wrong to have minorities then the only solution is mass population movements. Is that what you think should have happened?”
There is nothing wrong with having minorities, unionists simply did not want to be a minority in an independent Ireland and feared they would lose their control over industry and would have to share wealth with Catholics.
That is not a good enough reason to subvert democracy.
“Your intransigence is unacceptable.”
I don’t have any intransigence.”
That is funny MT.
“t is where both sides of an argument cancel each other out.”
Not sure what that means but a circular argument is when the premise relies on the conclusion.
“If the reason for redrawing the boundaries is because there would be a majority want something else in a sub section of the result, then where do you stop?”
I’ve no idea what that means.
” Why not look at cities, towns, streets and keep it going? It will always be possible to carve up results into smaller subsections to subvert the overall result.”
No idea what thst means either. Boundaries should be drawn where they best facilitate the wishes of the people, but practical concerns naturally are relevant too.
“That does not change the fact that an overall majority in Ireland wanted independence for Ireland.”
Nor does it change the fact that an overall majority in the north-east wanted a separate jurisdiction outside an all-Ireland state.
“You will never get 100% in any referendum and democracy is going with a majority.”
The majority in the north-east voted for a separate jurisdiction.
“The losing minority should have accepted the will of the people of Ireland.”
The losing minority in the north-east should have accepted the will of the people in the north-east.
Should Irish nationalists, a minority in the British Isles, have accepted the will of the people of the British Isles?
“There is nothing wrong with having minorities, ”
So why have you been bleating about “30%”?
“unionists simply did not want to be a minority in an independent Ireland and feared they would lose their control over industry and would have to share wealth with Catholics.”
Nationalists simply did not want to be a minority in an independent British Isles, and feared they wouldn’t be able to change economic policy so as to harm Protestants.
“That is not a good enough reason to subvert democracy.”
Democracy wasn’t subverted. On the contrary, it was facilitated.
“Nationalists simply did not want to be a minority in an independent British Isles, and feared they wouldn’t be able to change economic policy so as to harm Protestants” – do you really believe that nationalists are motivated in economics by a desire to harm Protestants? Amazing…
“Nationalists simply did not want to be a minority in an independent British Isles, and feared they wouldn’t be able to change economic policy so as to harm Protestants” – do you really believe that nationalists are motivated in economics by a desire to harm Protestants? Amazing…”
No I don’t. And nor do I think that unionists are similarly motivated, which is precisely why I made that post. Amazing that you didn’t get it.
“Should Irish nationalists, a minority in the British Isles, have accepted the will of the people of the British Isles? ”
Are you saying the British people voted to keep Ireland within the UK?
Show me evidence of this will of the people of the British Isles MT.
I have ever heard such claptrap.
Why should anyone on the island of Britain have any say on what happens in Ireland MT?
Britain has no right to have any say in Ireland and I do not believe the British people have ever had any desire to impose their will on the Irish people.
“The majority in the north-east voted for a separate jurisdiction. ”
A majority of the people of Ireland voted for independence. There was no separate vote in the north east and there was never any democratic right for any part of Ireland to remain in the UK. The North east has no more relevance the South west.
The North east was besotted with unionist catholic hating bigots who were allowed to control all of the industry, jobs and wealth and treat their catholic neighbours as second class citizens. They feared home rule or independence taking this control away and threatened violence if it was allowed to happen.
“There is nothing wrong with having minorities, ”
So why have you been bleating about “30%”?”
I am not bleating on about anything. I am trying to explain my reasoning as to why what you are saying is wrong.
There was a 32 county election of which an overall majority supported independence.
It doesn’t matter at all that 4 counties in the north east want something else, they have to abide by the wishes of the majority.
That is what democracy is based on.
And only the people of the Island of Ireland have any right to have a say in what happens in Ireland.
Even the current British government would agree with that.
Every right thinking person on the planet would agree with that.
“Nationalists simply did not want to be a minority in an independent British Isles, and feared they wouldn’t be able to change economic policy so as to harm Protestants. ”
I have no problem with Protestants whatsoever MT, why would any Irish republican have a problem with Protestants? Ireland has had many heroic republicans who were Protestants.
What evidence do you have for that claim?
“That is not a good enough reason to subvert democracy.”
Democracy wasn’t subverted. On the contrary, it was facilitated.”
Democracy was subverted Unionist bigotry was facilitated.
“Are you saying the British people voted to keep Ireland within the UK? Show me evidence of this will of the people of the British Isles MT.”
They did many times, from the 1880s on, and in 1918.
“I have ever heard such claptrap.”
Your ignorance is again revealed.
“Why should anyone on the island of Britain have any say on what happens in Ireland MT?”
In an exercise of self-determination they shouldn’t, in my view, but by your logic they should.
“A majority of the people of Ireland voted for independence.”
A majority of people in the north-east voted for a separate jurisdiction.
“There was no separate vote in the north east and there was never any democratic right for any part of Ireland to remain in the UK. The North east has no more relevance the South west.”
There was no separate vote in Ireland and there was never any democratic right for any part of the British Isles to leave the UK. Ireland has no more relevance than Englsnd.
“The North east was besotted with unionist catholic hating bigots who were allowed to control all of the industry, jobs and wealth and treat their catholic neighbours as second class citizens. They feared home rule or independence taking this control away and threatened violence if it was allowed to happen.”
The South was besotted with nationalist Protestant hating bigots, who wanted to control all the industry, jobs and wealth and treat their Protestant neighbours as second class citizens. They feared remaining in the UK preventing this control and threatened violence if it was going to stay that way.
“I am not bleating on about anything. I am trying to explain my reasoning as to why what you are saying is wrong.”
You’ve failed utterly, because you said there shouldn’t have been a NI jurisdiction because of a 30% minority but then said “there is nothing wrong with having minorities”.
“There was a 32 county election of which an overall majority supported independence.”
It was a UK election and an overall majority in the north-east supported a separate jurisdiction.
“It doesn’t matter at all that 4 counties in the north east want something else, they have to abide by the wishes of the majority.”
But the majority there wanted a separate jurisdiction. They were the majority.
“And only the people of the Island of Ireland have any right to have a say in what happens in Ireland.”
The people of the island include those in the north-east who voted to be excluded from an all-Ireland state. It was their choice.
“I have no problem with Protestants whatsoever MT, why would any Irish republican have a problem with Protestants?”
Because Protestants didn’t want to be part of their all-Ireland state.
“Democracy was subverted Unionist bigotry was facilitated.”
It wasn’t. And your characterisation of it as such Ironically is a symptom of nationalist bigotry.
“Are you saying the British people voted to keep Ireland within the UK? Show me evidence of this will of the people of the British Isles MT.”
They did many times, from the 1880s on, and in 1918.”
That is falsehood MT.
Show me any evidence where the people on the island of Britain ever voted to keep Ireland within the UK or on any matter relating to Ireland whatsoever?
There is no way such a vote would not be online and I can find no reference to it.
“That is falsehood MT.”
It’s not. On the contrary, it’s true.
“Show me any evidence where the people on the island of Britain ever voted to keep Ireland within the UK or on any matter relating to Ireland whatsoever?”
Look up Wikipedia for general election results in 1885, 1886, 1895, 1900 and 1918.
“There was no separate vote in Ireland and there was never any democratic right for any part of the British Isles to leave the UK. Ireland has no more relevance than Englsnd. ”
So the people of Ireland have no more say on what happens in Ireland than the people of England?
Are you for real MT?
That would be like saying the people of Britain have no say on leaving the EU.
“The South was besotted with nationalist Protestant hating bigots, who wanted to control all the industry, jobs and wealth and treat their Protestant neighbours as second class citizens. They feared remaining in the UK preventing this control and threatened violence if it was going to stay that way.”
You are a sad individual MT.
“You’ve failed utterly, because you said there shouldn’t have been a NI jurisdiction because of a 30% minority but then said “there is nothing wrong with having minorities”
There shouldn’t have been a NI jurisdiction, because it created an artificial majority for unionists who were not happy being the minority a catholic country, so they decided to threaten violence if britain didn’t carve it up to better suit themselves.
“It doesn’t matter at all that 4 counties in the north east want something else, they have to abide by the wishes of the majority.”
But the majority there wanted a separate jurisdiction. They were the majority. ”
That changes nothing, there was an 80% in favour of independence in Glasgow, but they didn’t partition the country over it.
“So the people of Ireland have no more say on what happens in Ireland than the people of England?”
According to your logic, yes. Not according to mine.
“That would be like saying the people of Britain have no say on leaving the EU.”
Or the people of NI have no say on leaving the UK.
“The South was besotted with nationalist Protestant hating bigots, who wanted to control all the industry, jobs and wealth and treat their Protestant neighbours as second class citizens. They feared remaining in the UK preventing this control and threatened violence if it was going to stay that way.”
“You are a sad individual MT.”
You do realise I was simply replicating YOUR argument?. Not mine.
“There shouldn’t have been a NI jurisdiction, because it created an artificial majority for unionists who were not happy being the minority a catholic country, so they decided to threaten violence if britain didn’t carve it up to better suit themselves.”
There shouldn’t have been an all-Ireland jurisdiction, because it would have created an artificial majority for Irish nationalists who were not happy being the minority in a Protestant country, so they decided to threaten violence if Britain didn’t carve it up to better suit themselves.
“That changes nothing, there was an 80% in favour of independence in Glasgow, but they didn’t partition the country over it.”
There wasn’t 80% in favour. But regardless, people in Glasgow didn’t want to partition the country.
“There shouldn’t have been an all-Ireland jurisdiction, because it would have created an artificial majority for Irish nationalists who were not happy being the minority in a Protestant country, so they decided to threaten violence if Britain didn’t carve it up to better suit themselves. ”
But the Irish nationalist / catholic majority was not artificial MT. It was reality.
There was also no protestant country in 1918 MT. Is that what you would like Northern Ireland to be. A separate protestant country within the UK living off hand-outs from England?
So what happens when there is a nationalist majority do you think?
“But the Irish nationalist / catholic majority was not artificial MT. It was reality.”
So was the unionist/Protestant majority.
“There was also no protestant country in 1918 MT”
The UK was a Protestant country.
The UK is no more a country than the EU
It is a union of nations by agreement that can be undone by the component parts of the nation’s within that agreement.
“The UK is no more a country than the EU”
Yes it is. In fact the UK is a country and the EU isn’t.
“It is a union of nations by agreement that can be undone by the component parts of the nation’s within that agreement.”
Any country can be undone by “component parts” of it.
Ryan
In all honesty if they did rename Windsor Park, would you be going to any matches?
I have no particular interest myself but I suspect that those who now dislike Windsor Park will continue to dislike ‘The Stadium of love and harmony’ or whatever.
You make a fair point Gio.
In all honestly would I go to Windsor Park if it was renamed and sectarianism removed? Most likely I would. I’ll explain why. I love International football, Rugby, etc. If Brazil played Northern Ireland tomorrow I would really like to go and watch both play. I may not be an NI fan but I’d love to go and watch both play a good game of football, just for a night out. But because of the reputation of Windsor Park I would be very hesitant and would more likely not go, certainly not with children.
Ireland is bidding to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup and if its successful games will be played all over Ireland, including in the North. Now I may be wrong here but there could be games played in Windsor Park. Would I go to any games played at Windsor Park? At the minute, no. If the name was changed, the place more welcoming to all, then yes I would more likely go.
On the same token I understand some Protestants might feel unwelcome and intimidated at the likes of Casement Park. So if Windsor Park was renamed then I would support reciprocation for that and support the renaming of Casement Park if that was required and if it would help in making Protestants/Unionists more comfortable in attending events at Casement, especially since there’s going to be a new stadium built if the local residents stop messing about.
Ryan
Yes I don’t think renaming is going to win many converts somehow.
By the way are you not being a bit hard on the residents of West Belfast who seem to have perfectly reasonable concerns about that project, including those safety issues which the cultured Caral Ni Chuilin may or may not have know about?
“Yes I don’t think renaming is going to win many converts somehow.”
I agree.
Windsor Park Stadium is for linfield fans and unionists, it wont ever be anything else.
It can never be a shared stadium after its past.
Why do we keep trying to change one another?
We should let it remain a unionist stadium and let them name it whatever they want. Those outside of east Belfast it is none of our business.
As for casement, the residents homes will devalue it the stadium goes over 20K seater so whether it meets safety regulations or not they will not support it beyond a certain size. I don’t see any reason for it to be renamed.
If the GAA want a larger stadium for Ulster finals etc… then could they not build a 60,000 seater at the Maze?
They have the money for it themselves.
“In all honestly would I go to Windsor Park if it was renamed and sectarianism removed? Most likely I would. I’ll explain why. I love International football, Rugby, etc. If Brazil played Northern Ireland tomorrow I would really like to go and watch both play. I may not be an NI fan but I’d love to go and watch both play a good game of football, just for a night out. But because of the reputation of Windsor Park I would be very hesitant and would more likely not go, certainly not with children.”
What do you think would happen if you went and why does the name matter?
“reland is bidding to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup and if its successful games will be played all over Ireland, including in the North. Now I may be wrong here but there could be games played in Windsor Park. Would I go to any games played at Windsor Park? At the minute, no. If the name was changed, the place more welcoming to all, then yes I would more likely go.”
Why would you not go to a rugby match at Windsor Park? What do you think would happen? And why would it not happen if it had a different name?
I’m not a Linfield supporter myself, but really some of the stuff alleged by Roy Keane is just complete nonsense. I remember a black player called Antoine Coly playing for the club in the 1980s, but don’t recall him getting racial abuse from his own fans. Some of the most popular Linfield players in the 80s and 90s were people like Pat Fenlon and Dessie Gorman, both I think from Dublin and Tony Gorman from Donegal. The club presently has Catholic players, from both North and South, some with G.A.A. backgrounds and has allowed its facilities to be used by a camogie club. There is no doubt that it draws its support almost entirely from those with a working class, Protestant/Unionist background, but I presume that isn’t a crime, any more than Cliftonville drawing its support mainly from those with a Catholic/Nationalist background is a crime.
I agree with most of what you say, Willie. Nobody would suggest Linfield aren’t fielding Catholic players. My point is that Linfield has a sectarian history and so needs to seize any chance to impress on people that those days are gone. Having pics on its FB site telling people to ‘Stay Blue or Stay Away’ don’t help and insisting the name of the place stay the same doesn’t indicate a willingness to remove impressions of sectarianism. Even if they are only impressions, the club should be keen to dispel them.
Can anyone explain to me why Nationalist/Catholic/Republican footballers want to play for the NI team?
“Can anyone explain to me why Nationalist/Catholic/Republican footballers want to play for the NI team?”
The same reason Unionist/Protestant/Loyalist rugby /cricket/hockey players want to play for the Ireland rugby/cricket/hockey teams?
I want to play for a N Ireland rugby/cricket/hockey team. Can you help?
“I want to play for a N Ireland rugby/cricket/hockey team. Can you help?”
I want to play for an all-Ireland football team. Can you help?
Nah – sorry, MT. Certainly not if we’re playing Combined Rules. Don’t think you’ve got the right stuff…
“Nah – sorry, MT. Certainly not if we’re playing Combined Rules. Don’t think you’ve got the right stuff…”
Another facetious comment to avoid addressing the point.
“Another facetious comment to avoid addressing the point” – is every poster on this sight turning into a stereotypical headmaster??
“The same reason Unionist/Protestant/Loyalist rugby /cricket/hockey players want to play for the Ireland rugby/cricket/hockey teams?”
I think what JG meant MT, was that the NI team is not our national side and that the IFA has been discriminatory towards non unionists in the past, a history still reflected by a majority of the followers of the NI team today who still play under the loyalist ulster banner and stand to the English anthem.
The ROI football team is eligible to everyone on the island of Ireland so why would an irish citizen want to play for a 6 county of Ireland only team?
Jessica thank you that is exactly what I meant.