EVENING ECHO, Cork—1.3.2016
The Rising didn’t fail, elections proved that
JOHN Dolan and T. P. O’Mahony (Jan 9) complain that the 1916 Easter Rising had no mandate. Mr O’Mahony says (Jan 23) that, unlike 1916, the unmandated American armed revolt was justified by the popular support it enjoyed, and that is why, unlike 1916, the American rebellion succeeded.
At this point Mr O’Mahony throws his logic into reverse. He says 1916 failed, so therefore it must NOT have enjoyed majority support. In other words, if it had HAD majority support at the time, 1916 would have succeeded just like the American rebels.
Mr O’Mahony’s case seems to be that mandates/popular support are definitively established, not by voting but by victory in arms. Might is right.
He refers to James Connolly in support of this logic. But Connolly’s position was much simpler. Failing to dislodge the rebels from their positions, Britain could still deploy unlimited artillery, shells and bombs to flatten Dublin to the ground along with everything and everybody in it, without bothering about such trivialities as mandates or popular support.
Mandate or no mandate, there’s no answer to that. After all, might is right, isn’t it?
Mr O’Mahony is in good company. In the House of Commons, John Redmond pleaded with the British government to concede “self-government” in Dublin with county council-type powers. To head off accusations that the treacherous Irish would use this trifling concession to seek even more power, Redmond assured Parliament that, since the British army would remain in occupation of Ireland, any such disloyalty could at any time be put down by force. Might is right.
But unlike Mr O’Mahony, Redmond at least was consistent. Many times, including in the House of Commons, he acknowledged the right of the Irish to use force against the unmandated occupying power. Though doubting the possibility of success in arms against the world’s superpower, he expressed admiration and respect for those who held this position.
But the Great War instigated by Britain changed everything — for Pearse, Connolly, even Redmond. The first great assembly of Irish military in modern times took place, not in Easter 1916, but at Easter 1915, when 27,000 Volunteers paraded in Dublin under Redmond’s command, to the cheers of a crowd of 200,000 people (Freeman’s Journal, April 5, 1915). Redmond’s purpose was to issue a forceful military warning to the British government not to renege on his cherished Home Rule, and to the Ulster Volunteer Force not to resist it.
Redmond had good reason for this demonstration of force. For his great gamble was already lost. By the end of 1915, and without bothering about elections, mandates or other such democratic trivialities, the founders and leaders of the UVF had taken control of the British government and were to remain securely in power for a decade or so. Home Rule was toast, and everybody knew it.
Here is what Connolly said at the outset of the Great War: “Should a German army land in Ireland tomorrow we should be perfectly justified in joining it, if by doing so we could rid this country once and for all from its connection with the Brigand Empire that drags us unwillingly into this War”.
And three weeks later: “(Britain) was determined that since Germany could not be beaten in fair competition industrially, she must be beaten unfairly by organising a military and naval conspiracy against her… The British capitalist class has planned this colossal crime in order to ensure its uninterrupted domination of the commerce of the world.”
And in the most important public statement of his life — the Easter 1916 Proclamation, which Connolly composed and printed: “ … supported by gallant allies in Europe …, (Ireland) strikes in full confidence of victory.”
Victory? Mr O’Mahony says they failed. The success of the Rising was definitely established within two years by the overwhelming political support for Sinn Féin in the 1918 Election. This was further overwhelmingly endorsed in the Municipal Elections of January 1920, the Rural and County Elections of June 1920 and the 100% result in the 26 counties for Sinn Féin in the General Election of May 1921.
The results of this unprecedented sequence of elections across three years establish beyond any shadow of doubt the overwhelming support for the Easter Rising. It was a unique democratic endorsement of a Rebellion and laid the basis for the democratic state we have today, which is one of the longest lasting in the world
Pat Maloney, Editor, Labour Comment, Roman Street, Cork city
EVENING ECHO, Cork—1.3.2016
EVENING ECHO, CORK—LETTERS SAT. FEB. 6, 2016
YOUR correspondents Eamonn de Paor (Jan 29) and T.P. O’Mahony (Jan 23) make interesting points about the connection between the 1916 Easter Rising and the more recent conflict in Northern Ireland.
Did the 1916 Rising sow the seeds of the Northern Ireland war, as T.P. O’Mahony seems to suggest? It is possible to argue the opposite.
The Ulster Volunteer Force was founded in 1892 by Fred Crawford, and in 1912 went into armed revolt against the British Government’s Irish Home Rule policy. In 1920 It became the backbone of the security forces of Northern Ireland, re-emerging in 1966 as a separate paramilitary force. Nominally stood down since 2007, the UVF is still active in criminal, racist and sectarian activities.
In 1920, the British Government created the entity of Northern Ireland in accordance with its Government of Ireland Act. It had a completely free hand in choosing governing arrangements for the six counties yet deliberately and maliciously installed the most pernicious and provocative system one can imagine in the circumstances.
What did it do? While retaining sovereignty for itself, Britain reneged on its sovereign obligation to provide a routine law and order service for all citizens equally. Instead it put the UVF and its political wing in direct physical power over half a million or so defenceless Catholics.
That crime has to be laid at the feet of sovereign British authority. It is the elephant in the room which conveniently goes ‘unnoticed’ (so to speak) by the ‘experts’ in their numerous courses, books, films, and documentaries.
Somehow, a great many Catholics were inured to this system of permanent provocation. But human nature is human nature, and a great many were eventually provoked to breaking point.
The 1968-70 Provisionals did not seek war; quite the reverse. War came anyway, and the Provisionals improvised their part quite effectively.
Above all, they never lost sight of the responsibility of the sovereign power’s provocations; they never mistook the Stormont/Leinster House monkeys for the sovereign organ-grinder.
Irish people owe the Provisionals an eternal debt of gratitude for preventing British provocation from producing a Balkan/Middle Eastern-scale human catastrophe. It is notable that the access of the Provisionals to a measure of power in the Six Counties marks the least Balkans-like phase of that territory since 1920.
A new arrangement of this sort might have come about peacefully any time in earlier decades. I wonder why it didn’t. I wonder who was in charge of the Six Counties all that time.
Why did Britain do what it did in 1920? Why did it plant and prime the bomb which finally detonated in 1968? Just as importantly, how does it continue to get away with this crime?
The British Empire was created and sustained by ruthless gunmen, assisted by intelligent, gifted administrators and politicians whose job was to make a plausible case that the Empire was/is a force for good. In other words, to justify Britain’s aggression and conquests in the eyes of the world.
In the latter century or so, one plank of this case, in Ireland in particular, is that, while conceding some degree of local self-rule so that Britain appears to be a benevolent, impartial outsider (“Look! No hands!”), its restraining, civilising oversight is what keeps one tribe of primitive, irrational locals from kicking the living daylights out of another. This line has been used successfully around the world. It is an effective method of keeping control.
Uncharacteristically, Britain lost its way in the Irish situation before, during and after World War I, and unnecessarily lost a lot of influence in southern Ireland. But, by installing the pernicious system of the 1920-1998 Six Counties, it retained a degree of leverage over Ireland as a whole, while portraying itself in a good light.
This sounds Machiavellian. But how was British power sustained for so many centuries? Was it really because its subjects welcomed it as more civilised and beneficial than any other great power that ever existed? No doubt some highly benevolent British bombs are being dropped somewhere in the world as we speak.
The adherents of British power have always seen it as beneficial, often genuinely and sincerely, — and self-interestedly, no matter how many millions of innocents were enslaved or murdered. The 1920 Six County set-up was put in place almost instinctively; centuries of experience pointed the way. As a result, Britain is seen as disinterestedly holding the ring while some lesser breeds take it out on each other.
Since about 1970 this outlook has become the official doctrine in the Twenty Six Counties, as implied in T.P. O’Mahony’s letter to the Evening Echo. Such is the power and effectiveness of British propaganda.
Peadar Laffan, Youghal
EVENING ECHO, CORK—LETTERS SAT. FEB. 6, 2016
EVENING ECHO, CORK —FRIDAY, JAN. 29, 2016
TP O’Mahony (Letters, Jan 23) criticises the 1916 Easter Rising because, he says, of “the dangerous implications of the precedent it set”.
This is somewhat mysterious. Why not say plainly what is the precedent?
Was it the precedent of liberation of subject peoples in the British Empire, an Empire which began to disintegrate after 1916?
Or was it like the precedent set by Sweden in 1905?
For 100 years or so, Sweden ruled Norway. The Norwegians let it be known that they would prefer to govern themselves. Just to make sure, Sweden held a plebiscite of the Norwegians, and accordingly made arrangements for orderly departure so that Norway could have its own independent government.
Not a shot fired, and Sweden and Norway have enjoyed good neighbourly relations ever since.
That’s a precedent, all right. But I doubt whether it is the precedent that Mr O’Mahony is hinting at. We will not really know until he tells us. So I will try to help him.
Unlike most countries in the world, for nearly 50 years of the 20th century Ireland was mercifully free from armed conflict, even though such violence was endemic here during the preceding centuries. (I wonder why?)
During 1968-1994, however, a violent conflict took place in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. Combatants on all sides of that struggle would sometimes set their experience in a context of earlier episodes such as American civil rights or colonial liberation. And also the Irish War of Independence, including the 1916 Rising.
Depending on their inherited traditions and sentiments, some naturally looked for inspiration in the earlier conflicts, while others equally naturally saw them as a threat.
I suggest that, rather than dealing with the 1916 Rising in its own context and on its own merits, Mr O’Mahony is committing the anachronism of viewing the 1916 Rising through a prism of the later and very different events in Northern Ireland.
Eamonn de Paor
Dunmore East
Co. Waterford
Earlier letter: EVENING ECHO, CORK —FRIDAY, JAN. 29, 2016
TP O’Mahony (Letters, Jan 23) criticises the 1916 Easter Rising because, he says, of “the dangerous implications of the precedent it set”.
This is somewhat mysterious. Why not say plainly what is the precedent?
Was it the precedent of liberation of subject peoples in the British Empire, an Empire which began to disintegrate after 1916?
Or was it like the precedent set by Sweden in 1905?
For 100 years or so, Sweden ruled Norway. The Norwegians let it be known that they would prefer to govern themselves. Just to make sure, Sweden held a plebiscite of the Norwegians, and accordingly made arrangements for orderly departure so that Norway could have its own independent government.
Not a shot fired, and Sweden and Norway have enjoyed good neighbourly relations ever since.
That’s a precedent, all right. But I doubt whether it is the precedent that Mr O’Mahony is hinting at. We will not really know until he tells us. So I will try to help him.
Unlike most countries in the world, for nearly 50 years of the 20th century Ireland was mercifully free from armed conflict, even though such violence was endemic here during the preceding centuries. (I wonder why?)
During 1968-1994, however, a violent conflict took place in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. Combatants on all sides of that struggle would sometimes set their experience in a context of earlier episodes such as American civil rights or colonial liberation. And also the Irish War of Independence, including the 1916 Rising.
Depending on their inherited traditions and sentiments, some naturally looked for inspiration in the earlier conflicts, while others equally naturally saw them as a threat.
I suggest that, rather than dealing with the 1916 Rising in its own context and on its own merits, Mr O’Mahony is committing the anachronism of viewing the 1916 Rising through a prism of the later and very different events in Northern Ireland.
Eamonn de Paor
Dunmore East
Co. Waterford
Bring on the next round! That’s far more interesting than the Carl Frampton fight last week…
Love it, honest open debate rather than the sectarian nonsense we have been fed. I wonder what part of this would be viewed as reinterpreting our past and rewriting history
False assertion in the original letter and the one reproduced above that the American rebellion had no mandate. It was mandated by the Continental Congress.
“False assertion in the original letter and the one reproduced above that the American rebellion had no mandate. It was mandated by the Continental Congress.”
So was that mandate for independence justified and do you think England was wrong to go to war to try and prevent American independence MT?
Not only go to war, but the sheer bloody murder and acts of gross terrorism inflicted on the population for seeking independence.
Surely you don’t think that conflict was justified?
“So was that mandate for independence justified”
Not sure what that means.
“and do you think England was wrong to go to war to try and prevent American independence MT?””
I assume you mean Great Britain rather than England. Yes, I think it was probably wrong, though I’m not an expert on that period of history.
“Surely you don’t think that conflict was justified?”
Why wouldn’t I?
“So was that mandate for independence justified”
Not sure what that means.”
You said it was mandated by the Continental Congress and I didn’t want to assume that you thought a majority vote could justify independence for the whole country.
After all, there were more and larger pockets of royalists than there were in Ireland. They didn’t partition the country though and it seemed to work better for them than partition did in Ireland where there were 3 electoral mandates for independence before Britain decided to go to war to prevent independence in Ireland.
Then again Ireland didn’t win the war of independence and has yet to achieve independence, hence partition and the return of conflict decades later mostly in the still occupied territory.
“and do you think England was wrong to go to war to try and prevent American independence MT?””
I assume you mean Great Britain rather than England. Yes, I think it was probably wrong, though I’m not an expert on that period of history. ”
No, Great Britain consists of three countries, England, Scotland and Wales. All taxes went to England and still do. The UK is ruled solely by England. The head is the king or queen of England, all taxes go to London and the currency (sterling) belongs solely to England and is controlled only by the bank of England as was made quite clear in the Scottish independence referendum.
So England was wrong to go to war to prevent independence in the US, I believe they were just as wrong to go to war to prevent independence in Ireland and the worst thing they ever did was partition our country.
“Surely you don’t think that conflict was justified?”
“Why wouldn’t I?”
I don’t believe any conflict can be justified, no killing or any acts of terrorism.
Anyone who thinks conflict can be justified is actually justifying killing and terrorism as that is exactly what conflict entails and indeed all it entails.
Had England not brought conflict to our country by denying its desire for independence and creating division over threats of violence, then so many people would have been so much better off.
England is a barbarous treacherous nation. It sickens me every single day it remains in control of a part of my country.
But more importantly, the fact the unionists like yourself feel conflict is justified to maintain that control even against the democratic wishes of the people, should never be ignored or forgotten.
“After all, there were more and larger pockets of royalists than there were in Ireland. They didn’t partition the country though and it seemed to work better for them than partition did in Ireland where there were 3 electoral mandates for independence before Britain decided to go to war to prevent independence in Ireland.”
If these “pockets” didn’t want partition, then we should respect that.
“Then again Ireland didn’t win the war of independence and has yet to achieve independence, hence partition and the return of conflict decades later mostly in the still occupied territory.”
Independence for that part where people wanted it was achieved in 1922. There is no occupied territory.
“No, Great Britain consists of three countries, England, Scotland and Wales. All taxes went to England and still do. The UK is ruled solely by England. The head is the king or queen of England, all taxes go to London and the currency (sterling) belongs solely to England and is controlled only by the bank of England as was made quite clear in the Scottish independence referendum.”
You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of the UK and, before that, the Kingdom of Great Britain.
“So England was wrong to go to war to prevent independence in the US, I believe they were just as wrong to go to war to prevent independence in Ireland and the worst thing they ever did was partition our country.”
You think facilitating the wishes of people living in what became NI was worse than, say, the Iraq War? Worse than not granting independence to the rest of Ireland? Worse than the Amritsar massacre?
“I don’t believe any conflict can be justified, no killing or any acts of terrorism.”
You keep saying that, but it’s clearly a lie as you also say you supported the Provisional IRA.
“Anyone who thinks conflict can be justified is actually justifying killing and terrorism as that is exactly what conflict entails and indeed all it entails.”
Conflict doesn’t necessarily entail terrorism.
“Had England not brought conflict to our country by denying its desire for independence and creating division over threats of violence, then so many people would have been so much better off.”
Had Irish nationalists not brought conflict to.our country by denying its desire for a united Britidh Isles and creating division over threats of violence, then so many people would have been so much better off.
“But more importantly, the fact the unionists like yourself feel conflict is justified to maintain that control even against the wishes of the people.”
I don’t. On the contrary, I support the facilitation of the wishes of the people. It is you who wish to suppress people’s wishes.
“If these “pockets” didn’t want partition, then we should respect that. ”
With respect, you have just contradicted your own statement that there was a mandate for America independence to suit your own opinion in Ireland.
Let me give you an example.
The result in the Scottish referendum was a small majority for the union. A very large minority supported independence.
Those who want independence are prepared to wait until there is an overall majority in favour of independence rather than divide the country.
What you are suggesting is to divide the country just to appease a minority.
That is not democracy.
Ireland was divided over threat of violence and has suffered since that division.
To prevent further conflict and in light of the changing demographic, the Irish people have agreed to put up with English rule in Ireland until there is a clear majority and to abide by the terms of peaceful means only.
There are those who disagree but a clear majority accept this. What do you suggest we do with the minority on both sides who do not support the GFA but want a physical contest for or against the union?
“With respect, you have just contradicted your own statement that there was a mandate for America independence to suit your own opinion in Ireland.”
How?
“Let me give you an example. The result in the Scottish referendum was a small majority for the union. A very large minority supported independence. Those who want independence are prepared to wait until there is an overall majority in favour of independence rather than divide the country.What you are suggesting is to divide the country just to appease a minority.”
I have never suggested that. Please don’t make things up.
“Ireland was divided over threat of violence and has suffered since that division.”
It has suffered because of a minority who wouldn’t accept the division .
“There are those who disagree but a clear majority accept this. What do you suggest we do with the minority on both sides who do not support the GFA but want a physical contest for or against the union?”
There has always been a large majority who accepted the partition compromise. I suggest we do what we always did: deal with them under the criminal law
“Anyone who thinks conflict can be justified is actually justifying killing and terrorism as that is exactly what conflict entails and indeed all it entails.”
“Conflict doesn’t necessarily entail terrorism.”
Are you serious MT?
You think there is a kind and friendly means of soldiers killing people do you.
I am sure the people of Syria and many other parts of the planet suffering from conflict would have something to say about your mind-set.
“Are you serious MT?”
Yes.
“You think there is a kind and friendly means of soldiers killing people do you.”
No. But there are means that don’t involve terrorism.
“You think there is a kind and friendly means of soldiers killing people do you.
No. But there are means that don’t involve terrorism.”
Do you think the nationalist community felt terrorised in 1966 when the UVF who made a statement declaring war on the defunct IRA and started attacking Catholics in Belfast?
Do you think the nationalist community felt terrorised when supporters of Ian Paisley held mass demonstrations branding O’Neill the ‘Ally of Popery’ and demanding that he ‘keep Ulster Protestant’.
Do you think the nationalist community felt terrorised in March 1969 when the UVF and Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV) started bombing electricity substations and other infrastructure?
Do you think the family of Samuel Devenny felt terrorised when RUC officers entered his house for no reason and beat him along with two of his teenage daughters, causing him to suffer a heart attack and die from his injuries.
Do you think the nationalist community felt terrorised in August 1969 unionist politicians like paisley raised tensions and brought large demonstrations onto the streets, when hundreds of catholic homes were burned and thousands of Catholics driven out of their homes?
Do you feel the people of the falls felt terrorised when the british army put them under military curfew and started killing people?
Or is that the way to deal with those who refuse to accept partition on unionist terms do you think?
“Do you think the nationalist community felt terrorised in 1966 when the UVF who made a statement declaring war on the defunct IRA and started attacking Catholics in Belfas etc etc etc ”
I don’t know, but whether they did or not is irrelevant. It’s still possible to kill people without engaging in terrorism.
“Do you think the nationalist community felt terrorised in 1966 when the UVF who made a statement declaring war on the defunct IRA and started attacking Catholics in Belfas etc etc etc
I don’t know, but whether they did or not is irrelevant. It’s still possible to kill people without engaging in terrorism.”
You’re all heart MT.
“You’re all heart MT.”
Ironic statement from someone who supported terrorism.
But I’ll take it you’ve conceded the point.
“Ironic statement from someone who supported terrorism.
But I’ll take it you’ve conceded the point.”
You sound like you are a terrorist MT. I would not be surprised one bit at all to find you are or were involved in the british state forces.
“You think facilitating the wishes of people living in what became NI was worse than, say, the Iraq War? Worse than not granting independence to the rest of Ireland? Worse than the Amritsar massacre? ”
We have never facilitated the wishes of people living in what became NI.
First of all, there has never been a democratic mandate for partition.
Second, under the threat of civil war by ulster unionists, mutiny, arms smuggling etc… britain decided to go against the democratic wishes of the people, and partition the country anyway. Initially it was to be all of ulster but to assist in numbers, it was reduced to 6 counties and still it only gave a protestant majority of 70%, 30% of the 6 counties were denied their own nationality which I believe was a human rights abuse. Hardly respecting the wishes of the people in what became NI, it was more a facilitation of unionist fascists.
“We have never facilitated the wishes of people living in what became NI.”
You haven’t, but Parliament did.
“First of all, there has never been a democratic mandate for partition.”
Yes there has, and still is.
“Second, under the threat of civil war by ulster unionists, mutiny, arms smuggling etc… britain decided to go against the democratic wishes of the people, and partition the country anyway. Initially it was to be all of ulster but to assist in numbers, it was reduced to 6 counties and still it only gave a protestant majority of 70%, 30% of the 6 counties were denied their own nationality which I believe was a human rights abuse. Hardly respecting the wishes of the people in what became NI, it was more a facilitation of unionist fascists.”
It wasn’t against the wishes of the people. It was in support of the wishes of the people.
“We have never facilitated the wishes of people living in what became NI.”
You haven’t, but Parliament did.”
No, you should read up on what democracy actually is MT.
Ireland had a clear majority in favour of independence.
Just because not everyone is of the same opinion, good people do what is in the best interests of their country, not divide it.
The UK is no more a country than the EU. Just as the english now desire their independence, Ireland was entitled to have its referendum on independence also.
If there is a majority support for a brexit, should the EU be able to thwart it and carve up England on a gerrymandered basis MT?
Our country is Ireland. Northern Ireland is not a country, it is only the part of that country that britain gerrymandered, which happens to be in the north. A country that a large proportion of planet is very proud off.
The british parliament have only facilitated a bigoted, fascist and frustratingly self centred and egotistic, unionist mind-set.
It is time for britain to go MT, and unrepentant unionist attitudes along with it.
It is time that our country looked after its own.
“No, you should read up on what democracy actually is MT.”
Why? I already know what it is. It’s you who doesn’t seem to know.
“Ireland had a clear majority in favour of independence.”
But not in the north-east where there was a clear majority in favour of forming a separate jurisdiction to stay in the UK.
“Just because not everyone is of the same opinion, good people do what is in the best interests of their country, not divide it.”
But it was in the best interests of the country to divide it.
“The UK is no more a country than the EU.”
That’s untrue.
“If there is a majority support for a brexit, should the EU be able to thwart it and carve up England on a gerrymandered basis MT?”
Eh? What an absurd question. Why should the EU do that?
“Our country is Ireland. Northern Ireland is not a country, it is only the part of that country that britain gerrymandered, which happens to be in the north. A country that a large proportion of planet is very proud off.”
That’s fantastic if that’s what you want to believe, but the people will make their own minds up.
“But not in the north-east where there was a clear majority in favour of forming a separate jurisdiction to stay in the UK.”
That is not democracy and not what happened anyway.
Unionists did not want to share the wealth from shipbuilding with the rest of catholic ireland, they thought they would have to share the jobs and wealth with catholics as equals and that was not acceptable.
Instead, they threatened civil war if they were not allowed to retain control over initially ulster. This was later reduced to 6 counties to keep a bigger majority (70% to 30%) and was implemented which in turn disenfranchised the irish catholics in those counties from the independence which the majority in the country overall voted for.
As I said, what you are saying would be the equivalent of Scotland dividing between a free Scottish state and a part remaining in the UK.
The Scottish put their country first.
“That is not democracy and not what happened anyway.”
It us democracy and it is what happened.
“Unionists did not want to share the wealth from shipbuilding with the rest of catholic ireland, they thought they would have to share the jobs and wealth with catholics as equals and that was not acceptable. Instead, they threatened civil war if they were not allowed to retain control over initially ulster. This was later reduced to 6 counties to keep a bigger majority (70% to 30%) and was implemented which in turn disenfranchised the irish catholics in those counties from the independence which the majority in the country overall voted for.”
Dress it up how you please, but it remains the case that a large majority in the north-east voted to create a separate jurisdiction.
“As I said, what you are saying would be the equivalent of Scotland dividing between a free Scottish state and a part remaining in the UK.”
How?
“Dress it up how you please, but it remains the case that a large majority in the north-east voted to create a separate jurisdiction. ”
Really, when was that MT, do tell?
“As I said, what you are saying would be the equivalent of Scotland dividing between a free Scottish state and a part remaining in the UK.
How?”
The Scottish referendum had a larger minority who wanted independence than unionists had in ulster.
In fact 80% of Glasgow voted for independence.
By your reasoning, Glasgow should break away from the UK as a large majority voted to create a separate jurisdiction.
Would you not agree?
“Really, when was that MT, do tell?”
1918.
“The Scottish referendum had a larger minority who wanted independence than unionists had in ulster.In fact 80% of Glasgow voted for independence.”
And?
“By your reasoning, Glasgow should break away from the UK as a large majority voted to create a separate jurisdiction.”
How do you come to that conclusion?