Unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry, yes unionists don’t like to hear this, they have tried to argue against this on this site and failed miserably to provide a reasonable argument against my opinion other than blindly condemning it as racist which will cut no ice with me.
I have also said, that this does not mean every person who considers themselves a unionist is a bigot. I don’t consider myself a racist, but some of my opinions on certain things such as that totally free movement within the EU allows paedophiles and rapists unhindered access to our country from abroad, will be considered by some to be racist in a similar way.
Ireland has always been and always will be one country.
Unionists here will say it has never been one country before British rule united our people, but while historically the Irish culture was stateless with clans and kingships throughout the country, every one of them knew their land was part of Ireland and when needed they would have put personal differences aside and called on one another to defend our shores together. It was because our people were not united as a people that Britain has always been able to conquer or bully Ireland.
Partition does not and cannot take away the Irish birth right.
Northern Ireland may have dual citizenship at present, but only one is by agreement and can be taken away at the stroke of a pen.
If the Irish constitution claimed the north was no longer part of Ireland, it would not make it so, it would simply make an ass of the Irish constitution and the whole world would say this was stupid. The inalienable right to be Irish extends to all parts of the island of Ireland.
In the same way, the inalienable right to be British extends to all parts of the island of Britain. That is England, Scotland and Wales.
No part of Ireland has ever been or ever will be part of Britain.
It is the act of union which extends British citizenship to Ireland. If England no longer want the hassle of Ireland, they can remove the right to British citizenship from every part of Ireland. Another fact that unionists find hard to swallow and one that their support for Brexit has revealed on all its glory.
The Good Friday Agreement was a peace accord to end a bloody conflict which polarised our communities in the north. It accepted the unification of Ireland was a legitimate right which if pursued peacefully and democratically would be supported by both state guarantors. In the meantime, Irish republicans would have to accept British rule would remain until such time as the democratic will was there to unite the country.
Sinn Fein I believe have lived up to their word in this agreement and almost 20 years on I believe, especially in light of the brexit result deserve unionism to be at least willing to start talking about the benefits and potential from unification to all of our people.
You would think that, but alas my assertion that unionism has bigotry at its core is very true.
One unionist contributor put it very well when he explained the reason unionism will refuse to even talk about benefits of a United Ireland as follows.
“Unionism *can’t* discuss it because to discuss it means to have failed. It means discussing the terms of our surrender of identity.”
Once again, google definition of bigotry.
“intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.”
If the leaders of unionism cannot do what is best for all of our people because every decision, even non pre-conditional talking about certain options are denied to us if it goes against their core ethos which direct from a very moderate and reasonable unionist remains simply “no surrender”, then are they fit for government at all and is Stormont fit to stand?
I would say no to both and was unable to vote for it, not due to laziness but because I rely on my gut instincts to know what is right and wrong and Stormont and unionism are both wrong. It is becoming more urgent that they are both wrapped up. Even in a united Ireland there can be no devolution to the north.
The problem coming down the road is change is happening, unionism is weakening and their bully boy political tactics such as flag protests, orange order led marching protests, graduated responses or any threats of civil disobedience will no longer and are no longer working.
The leaders if unionism have yet to acknowledge their role in starting the conflict or in creating divisions and their continued blatant displays of bigotry and intolerance towards Irish independence will only encourage the militant elements of unionism – at times deliberately so.
How long will it be before unionism once more turns to the gun and threats of violence to get their way?
Ignoring the fact that unionism brought the gun into Irish politics, introduced Para militarism to Ireland and started the conflict in the first place is only going to encourage them to do it again.
Is Dublin once again going to leave us to suffer at the hands of unionist belligerence?
Again Jessica your spot on. You’re easily the best contributor on this site.Unionists do not care about ‘NI’ they only care about this place as long as they are in charge.I wonder if we ever get a UI will there be an exodus back to the ‘mainland’ due to their inability to embrace equality!
Yet more pronouncements, bleatings and royal decrees from the Queen of Sheba. I told how she was the self anointed one, and it remains true to this day.
Every word of Sheba’s bitter, hate-filled outpourings, leaches forth from her soul and unto the computer screen – revealing the mentality of a High School, pigtailed brat, thumbing her priggish, pig nose up at her elders and betters and going, “Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na!”
What a nauseating Oik to witness and tiresome mindset to behold.
“Every word of Sheba’s bitter, hate-filled outpourings, leaches forth from her soul and unto the computer screen – revealing the mentality of a High School, pigtailed brat, thumbing her priggish, pig nose up at her elders and betters and going, “Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na!”
What a nauseating Oik to witness and tiresome mindset to behold”
KC, there is more hate in these few sentences you have posted than anything I have ever written..
Everything that I am saying is true and is based on decades of first hand experience.
I am in no doubt whatsoever.
There is obviously raw emotion here, but I am prepared to listen and willing even yearning to be convinced that I am wrong.
In this case, I would be only too happy to be proven wrong and to be made eat my words to which I would have no problem apologising for anything I get wrong.
But by this response, I’m afraid you are doing more to prove that I am right.
“Unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry…” vs “that this does not mean every person who considers themselves a unionist is a bigot”
Run this past me again Jessica, how on earth does that make sense?!
If you follow a bigoted doctrine then how are you not bigoted?! If you ‘believe’ in bigotry and actively support it then how are you not a bigot?!
The problem is that you only accept the bigoted end of unionism as unionism, you fail to see people who just simply vote for the status quo as ‘unionists’.
That is YOUR problem. YOU do not get to decide who is a bigot and who isn’t just because you had a tough time of it back in the day which is ultimately what all your rebuttals boil down to when your cornered.
If someone here mentions a non-bigoted unionist example you then go all nuclear and mention bad times from your youth as opposed to logically and rationally dissecting the argument.
If a foreign taxi driver votes for the status quo e.g. pro-union, then he/she is a (de-facto) unionist.
If a recently arrived Timorese factory worker happens to vote pro-UK (for whatever reason) then he/she is a (de-facto) unionist
If a person of Catholic background is happy enough with their lot up here and doesn’t want to rattle the cage then he/she is a (de-facto)unionist.
The fact that they aren’t out drinking at a band parade or panning-in a nationalist’s windows doesn’t mean they’re NOT unionists, unionism is not a case of ‘you must be this bigoted to enter’.
That YOU choose to see only the worst aspects of unionism as unionism proper is YOUR interpretation.
I don’t judge republican ideology by shooting pensioners in the face, dropping bombs in litter bins and kidnapping & murdering mothers; republican ideology is something separate, it’s just a shame that such acts were done in it’s name but having at least half of a functioning brain I can at least separate the extreme from the ideal.
Honestly, I’ve never read such rubbish and the fact that you can never defend your stance logically rather you normally revert to guilt-tripping or topic-changing (both of which I expect presently and will welcome them as they are signs of you being stumped) shows that your assertion is weak.
AG, the alliance party are supportive of the status quo, that does not make them unionists, at least in the way that parties who declare themselves unionist are.
Likewise, someone who supports the union at the moment for no more than personal choice is not necessarily an ulster or Irish unionist and many I am sure vote SDLP or other non unionist declaring parties.
Unionism in Ireland is not the same as unionism in Britain. It is a completely different ideology and they have very little in common.
I do see why you would want to portray unionism as nothing more than an innocent preference in support of the UK, but many of us who have lived with unionism for decades can assure you that it is not.
Nowhere in Britain does support of the union result in triumphalism, in community segregation, in sectarianism, in public displays of bigotry, flag and effigy burning.
Unionism in Ireland has a history. It has brought the gun into Irish politics, it created Para militarism in Ireland, it mutinied against England and threatened civil war to control part of Ireland and has ruled discriminatively ever since. It has yet to acknowledge these facts and the result on the ground within working class loyalist communities is a growing support for a return to militancy.
The leadership of republicanism has made every effort towards genuine reconciliation, has made a stand against militant republicanism, has been successful in leading nationalism towards peace and a better future. The IRA have gone for good. Sinn Fein have supported the PSNI, have made all of the effort to make administering British rule in Ireland work.
Unionism on the other hand remains as intransigent as it ever has been, its leaders still incapable of showing basic respect and manners, still holding on to the no surrender stance, still incapable of talking about Irish unity.
Both republicanism and Unionism should be judged from the leaders who represent those ideologies. Presently that is Sinn Fein and the DUP.
There is no ambiguity in what I am saying AG. It is not difficult to understand in any way whatsoever.
But more importantly, there is a large community out there who have lived through the unionist dominated years who will know very well what I am saying is true.
Unionism must be held to account, must be made to respect equality, must be made to understand the law applies to them, must be made to do more to educate its people that violence is wrong and their anti Irishness is not acceptable in modern Ireland.
You don’t want to see it but Unionist militancy is already resurfacing AG.
You can try to sweep it under the carpet which many of us will not allow, or you can educate your community with the truth, acknowledge our past and work together to pursue genuine reconciliation.
“AG, the alliance party are supportive of the status quo, that does not make them unionists, at least in the way that parties who declare themselves unionist are.”
Incorrect, Alliance is a mixed bag and Ford has repeatedly declared that they are ‘agnostic’ on the union, Lo on the other hand favoured a UI.
Secondly, it’s not uncommon to find nationalists calling Alliance ‘unionist’ in the same way equally blinkered unionists would call them ‘nationalist’. That’s my point, you and the hard line unionists think YOU get to define what unionism (and other ‘isms’) are.
Two sides of the same coin….
“Unionism in Ireland is not the same as unionism in Britain. It is a completely different ideology and they have very little in common.”
Incorrect. The ideology is the same alas the execution is/was different.
That the ideology in NI has been abused it not the fault of the ideology itself.
It’s like saying communism is about mass executions.
Communism itself is NOT about mass slaughter but it has been corrupted by various groups to come to mean just that.
So basically you’re just choosing to see a Stalin where there should be a Marx.
“Nowhere in Britain does support of the union result in triumphalism, in community segregation, in sectarianism, in public displays of bigotry, flag and effigy burning.”
GOOD! That is Unionism done PROPERLY.
“Unionism in Ireland has a history. It has brought the gun into Irish politics, it created Para militarism in Ireland, it mutinied against England and threatened civil war to control part of Ireland and has ruled discriminatively ever since. It has yet to acknowledge these facts and the result on the ground within working class loyalist communities is a growing support for a return to militancy.’
Correct, unionist leaders in NI did this. That again is an abuse of the ideology, not the ideology itself which you said was ‘a sliding scale of bigotry’ yet you have just demonstrated a scenario where unionism is fine, ergo, your assertion has been disproved by your own words.
“The leadership of republicanism has made every effort towards genuine reconciliation, has made a stand against militant republicanism, has been successful in leading nationalism towards peace and a better future. The IRA have gone for good. Sinn Fein have supported the PSNI, have made all of the effort to make administering British rule in Ireland work. ”
Half truths, I can’t be assed getting into the details but a crocodile wouldn’t swallow half of that…
“Unionism on the other hand remains as intransigent as it ever has been, its leaders still incapable of showing basic respect and manners, still holding on to the no surrender stance, still incapable of talking about Irish unity.”
No, the bulk of unionist parties (who had to form an electoral pact in EAST BELFAST to get their man in) have done as you said, the rest of ‘unionism’ hasn’t. (Also, you’re wrong, Basil McCrea before his act of political suicide was happy to discuss a UI and even attended a SF conference down south, so, again, you’re wrong).
“Both republicanism and Unionism should be judged from the leaders who represent those ideologies. Presently that is Sinn Fein and the DUP.”
Cobblers!
To me republicanism is about people like Wolf Tone and Roddy McCorley, not this outfit who have hijacked the name.
“There is no ambiguity in what I am saying AG. It is not difficult to understand in any way whatsoever.”
Correct, it’s called ‘hammering a favoured shape through an ill fitting hole’.
“But more importantly, there is a large community out there who have lived through the unionist dominated years who will know very well what I am saying is true.”
There are millions if not tens of millions of unionists in the UK, YOU and these people you mention don’t get to dissect, divide and distil the definition until you have your own palatable bottle of unionist bogeyman which is exactly what your doing.
If there are any decent aspects of maintaining the union then you find an excuse to say why it doesn’t count.
Disenfranchisement is a symptom of a weak foundation just like your opening assertion.
“Unionism must be held to account, must be made to respect equality, must be made to understand the law applies to them, must be made to do more to educate its people that violence is wrong and their anti Irishness is not acceptable in modern Ireland.”
Fine.
“You don’t want to see it but Unionist militancy is already resurfacing AG.”
Republican militancy isn’t exactly anaemic at the moment either but I don’t hold the entire nationalist community answerable to it.
“You can try to sweep it under the carpet which many of us will not allow, or you can educate your community with the truth, acknowledge our past and work together to pursue genuine reconciliation.”
Again, incorrect. Name me one time where I tried to sweep anything under the carpet?
You’re just point dodging and distracting. Again.
“Run this past me again Jessica, how on earth does that make sense?!”
It is really not difficult that AG, simply believing in the UK and even voting on occasion for parties who support it does not in itself make someone a bigot.
Supporting the ideology which exists within unionism here, such as refusing to even talk about possible economic benefits because it would be considered surrender and a failure within unionism is indeed a form of bigotry and even goes against the whole ethos of the Good Friday Agreement.
On the other end of the scale you have DUP members of parliament being blatantly bigoted and insulting in their rejection of such discussions.
Show me one unionist leader who is supportive of talks on the benefits of unification for all of our people bearing in mind there are no preconditions and nothing is on or off the table.
Are you seriously saying that even though the GFA enshrines the pursuit of Irish unification, it is perfectly acceptable for unionism to deny those aspirations from even being discussed for no other reason than they don’t intend to allow it to happen or even be considered in talks?
“If you follow a bigoted doctrine then how are you not bigoted?! If you ‘believe’ in bigotry and actively support it then how are you not a bigot?!”
If you support the above position AG, then you are indeed an intolerant bigot.
You would be refusing to acknowledge the importance of the aspirations towards Irish unity are to me and my community.
You would be failing to represent the interests of our society as a whole and prioritising a one sided pro British agenda.
“The problem is that you only accept the bigoted end of unionism as unionism, you fail to see people who just simply vote for the status quo as ‘unionists’.”
I do not consider everyone who votes for the status quo to be automatically unionists.
Unionism goes further and has an agenda and an ideology, my remarks are aimed at those who believe in the unionist agenda and ideology, whether they vote or not is irrelevant.
“That is YOUR problem. ”
Unfortunately it is all of our problem AG
“That YOU choose to see only the worst aspects of unionism as unionism proper is YOUR interpretation.”
I judge unionism on the actions of its political leaders, currently the DUP and UUP.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge the role unionism factually played in starting the troubles?
Would it not be best to tell the truth and draw a line under it?
More importantly, what good will sweeping it under the carpet and educating your people only on the wrongs done onto them do?
I don’t judge republican ideology by shooting pensioners in the face, dropping bombs in litter bins and kidnapping & murdering mothers; republican ideology is something separate, it’s just a shame that such acts were done in it’s name but having at least half of a functioning brain I can at least separate the extreme from the ideal.
I am not judging unionism on any violent actions during the conflict. I am judging unionism solely on the actions of its political representatives.
As far as I can see, the leadership of nationalism / republicanism has always been supportive of peace and reconciliation, has acknowledged the hurt caused by conflict and our role in it. The leadership of Unionism has yet to do likewise and we are still waiting for them to step up to the plate.
This will not go away until they do.
“Honestly, I’ve never read such rubbish and the fact that you can never defend your stance logically rather you normally revert to guilt-tripping or topic-changing (both of which I expect presently and will welcome them as they are signs of you being stumped) shows that your assertion is weak.”
I have no intention of changing the topic AG. There can be no avoidance from unionism of this imperative.
““Run this past me again Jessica, how on earth does that make sense?!”
It is really not difficult that AG, simply believing in the UK and even voting on occasion for parties who support it does not in itself make someone a bigot.
”
THAT’S. MY. POINT.
But if some one votes for a bigoted ideology (as is your assertion) then how are they not bigoted? You didn’t answer that question properly, you produced a straw man.
“Supporting the ideology which exists within unionism here, such as refusing to even talk about possible economic benefits because it would be considered surrender and a failure within unionism is indeed a form of bigotry and even goes against the whole ethos of the Good Friday Agreement.”
Again you’re cherry picking as to what unionism is; yes, several manifestations of unionism do as you so, others don’t but you refuse to acknowledge them.
“I do not consider everyone who votes for the status quo to be automatically unionists.
Unionism goes further and has an agenda and an ideology, my remarks are aimed at those who believe in the unionist agenda and ideology, whether they vote or not is irrelevant.”
Then you’re ignoring fact.
Below I have pasted the accepted term for the word ‘unionist’.
If you choose to ignore it then you’re simply operating out with accepted political terms which means this essay of yours is pointless.
Again, YOU don’t get to decide.
**********************
noun
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/unionist
1A member of a trade union.
Example sentences
2
(Unionist)
A person, especially a member of a Northern Ireland political party, who is in favour of the union of Northern Ireland with Great Britain.
**********
Ergo, if you’re in favour of the union for what ever reason you’re a ‘unionist’.
It doesn’t mean they are Orangemen or bandsmen or bigots though in Northern Ireland that is frequently the case, but, blame the abusers, not the idea.
Also, regarding the unionist agenda, did you regard NI21 as bigots?
“I judge unionism on the actions of its political leaders, currently the DUP and UUP.”
Which explains you’re narrow perspective.
“Why is it so hard to acknowledge the role unionism factually played in starting the troubles?”
To a normal person armed with facts it isn’t. I acknowledge it but am still a unionist (even more so after debating with you).
The question should be ‘why do HARDLINERS find it hard acknowledge it’, but, if you did that you’d pull the rug out from under your opening line.
“Would it not be best to tell the truth and draw a line under it?”
Yup.
“More importantly, what good will sweeping it under the carpet and educating your people only on the wrongs done onto them do?”
Not much good I’d imagine.
“I am not judging unionism on any violent actions during the conflict. I am judging unionism solely on the actions of its political representatives.”
Which is why you have such a narrow view.
“As far as I can see, the leadership of nationalism / republicanism has always been supportive of peace and reconciliation, has acknowledged the hurt caused by conflict and our role in it. The leadership of Unionism has yet to do likewise and we are still waiting for them to step up to the plate.
This will not go away until they do.”
Not entirely wrong but again I’m not in the mood to nit-pick.
“I have no intention of changing the topic AG. There can be no avoidance from unionism of this imperative.”
What?
“But if some one votes for a bigoted ideology (as is your assertion) then how are they not bigoted? You didn’t answer that question properly, ”
Let me try to answer it properly then AG.
Any unionist who would refuse to discuss the benefits of Irish unification simply because it goes against their own views that the union is the only acceptable option is a bigot.
Anyone who votes unionist because of their support for this stance, is also a bigot.
If someone does not agree with this stance but votes unionist for another reason, then how can I call them a bigot?
Is that clear enough for you now?
So as a hypothetical Jessica if someone votes for say the DUP because they like there stance on corporation tax or likes there policy on educated is that person a bigot by your definition?
I’m not sure you can call people bigoted just because they don’t wish to discuss political topics you would like to discuss. I would like to see all political parties discussing integrated education more, but I certainly wouldn’t call them bigoted for not talking about it. Just diffrent political priorities I guess.
“So as a hypothetical Jessica if someone votes for say the DUP because they like there stance on corporation tax or likes there policy on educated is that person a bigot by your definition?”
Not for simply casting a vote I wouldn’t think so anyway.
But I disagree totally with you that political unionisms refusal to contemplate unification even if it is in the best interests of our people is not bigotry.
It is, because it adversely impacts on others and therefore is unfair on those who don’t share unionism viewpoint and is simply imposing their views on others.
“But I disagree totally with you that political unionisms refusal to contemplate unification even if it is in the best interests of our people is not bigotry.”
“It is, because it adversely impacts on others and therefore is unfair on those who don’t share unionism viewpoint and is simply imposing their views on others.:
But I disagree totally with you that political nationalisms refusal to contemplate permanent union even if it is in the best interests of our people is not bigotry.
It is, because it adversely impacts on others and therefore is unfair on those who don’t share nationalism viewpoint and is simply imposing their views on others.
There is many not talking about reunification Jessica even on the nationalist side. I have heard nothing serious or detailed from FG, FF, SDLP or SF.
Are the Nationalist parties above bigoted, in your view, as they aren’t even talking about it seriously? They could discuss amongst themselves and don’t need Unionist political parties to have a debate.
Scott, this is getting really very desperate.
I never said anyone was bigoted because they weren’t talking about reunification.
I said the reason Unionism not only rejected the offer from our Taoiseach to talk about what is best for all parts of Ireland post brexit in a specific forum where it would have full attention of all of the key stakeholders, or why it refuses to talk about all options with their partners in government who have asked them to do so numerous times. and why they mock and oppose everything that could lend support to that viewpoint is totally self serving and not in the interests of all of our people.
Lets say down the road, Sinn Fein are the largest party and dominate the assembly. Not what I want to see ever but for example.
Imagine all traces of britishness were removed from all buildings, everything unionism wanted was ignored and there was total refusal to discuss benefits of closer links with Britain, simply because they were in a position to block them.
I would say there would be many in my community who would be very unhappy that they would choose to behave like that.
As I have said, I hope when we are in control we do not resort to do unto unionism what it has done onto us.
Stop making excuses Scott and face up to reality.
well that grievance should be targeted at the DUP then, not everyone who is a Unionist.
Perhaps this is simply a disagreement over terminology. If you directed your rage correctly and used terms such as the DUP or political unionism instead of simply Unionism then perhaps you wouldn’t annoy people so much.
Or perhaps you do believe that every Irish Unionist in some part a bigot. I would be careful with your terminology though because as far as I know calling people bigoted is libellous if you can back it up with specifics of a individuals behaviour
“Is that clear enough for you now?”
No. Not at all. It doesn’t answer my points at all.
It’s another deflection. You’ve moved the goalposts again.
“Again you’re cherry picking as to what unionism is; yes, several manifestations of unionism do as you so, others don’t but you refuse to acknowledge them.”
Ok, let us define what a unionist is.
In my own opinion, Unionism is the support for imposed British rule in Ireland, period.
2
(Unionist)
A person, especially a member of a Northern Ireland political party, who is in favour of the union of Northern Ireland with Great Britain.
That would be basically the same thing from your dictionary list.
As you can see, an individual simply casting a vote on its own does not make someone a unionist, yet you claim it is. YOU do not get to decide whether or not that person is a unionist.
I would also add the same would apply to someone in England who supports imposed British rule in Ireland.
But in Britain there are also unionists who support the UK but only through agreement and they would support dialog to achieve or maintain an agreement towards the said union.
It is imposing it without this agreement and refusing to acknowledge others views on it which is bigotry.
Which means there is an aspect of unionism which exists WITHOUT imposition?!
If so, you’re initial assertion is incorrect.
“Also, regarding the unionist agenda, did you regard NI21 as bigots?”
If NI21 took the same stance to refuse to even talk about the benefits of unification because it went against their views that the union is the only acceptable option, then yes, they would also be bigots. Do you know what their stance was?
You’re the one making the one-size-fits-all assertion so you should know better than I, so, you tell me.
If you don’t know then you have no right to make such an assertion.
“If you don’t know then you have no right to make such an assertion.”
While the representatives of unionism behave as they do, we have every right to make that assertion.
“I judge unionism on the actions of its political leaders, currently the DUP and UUP.Which explains you’re narrow perspective.”
It is not a narrow perspective. It is the most accurate way of assessing a communities views.
It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Your suggestion than you can claim to be unionist but on an individual basis and distance yourself from the actions of the political leadership of unionism is a cop out.
“Why is it so hard to acknowledge the role unionism factually played in starting the troubles?”
To a normal person armed with facts it isn’t. I acknowledge it but am still a unionist (even more so after debating with you).
The question should be ‘why do HARDLINERS find it hard acknowledge it’, but, if you did that you’d pull the rug out from under your opening line.”
But AG, it is not only hardliners who refuse to acknowledge it.
Name one representative of unionism who has acknowledged this to date?
Dawn Purvis:
“During the debate Ms Purvis raised the issue of how the Troubles started.
She asked, “What came first: stinking, polluted politics or bloody awful violence?” She accused mainstream unionism of having a “particularly blinkered view” of the causes of the conflict.
“They deny discrimination existed. They deny that all working-class people, but mostly Catholics, endured in slums, squalor, poverty, and unemployment in order to preserve the power of the political elite,” she said.”
”
“Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) leader Dawn Purvis accused the former unionist establishment of denying that discrimination existed, “mostly” against Catholics, while Ulster Unionist MLA Basil McCrea said the conflict was caused by republican attempts to achieve a united Ireland.”
And what do you believe started the conflict AG?
“And what do you believe started the conflict AG?”
So, do you accept that your assertion was incorrect know that you’ve read the Dawn Purvis quote?
With regards to starting it:
I believe it was a combination of paranoia, religious bigotry, fear of being subsumed by the south, stubbornness to accept what is clearly there.
All of this was facilitated by the lack of interest of the British government in a devolved state’s business.
“So, do you accept that your assertion was incorrect know that you’ve read the Dawn Purvis quote?”
I haven’t changed my opinion if that is what you mean and nothing I said was incorrect. Jude has accepted my explanation of it if you care to read that.
As for Dawn Purvis, I understand perfectly well where she is coming from, I don’t think you do though.
She is saying that the problem is not the working class loyalists who are burning bonfires and flying flags out of their bedroom windows but the political elite who encourage and mislead them for their own ends and drop them like hot coals when it gets too hot.
She is saying that bigotry in those communities starts at the top and feeds down, that political unionism is acting like back line generals and using young loyalists as cannon fodder pushing them to the front lines as political pawns with their graduated responses and protests.
I agree with her and have a lot of respect for her and other hard working loyalists who have the best interests of their community at heart.
It is people who claim to despise the actions of those working class loyalists but happily tolerate the bigotry of their elected representatives so long as the problems remain in the working class poverty stricken areas and away from their more affluent areas. That is who I despise the most.
“I believe it was a combination of paranoia, religious bigotry, fear of being subsumed by the south, stubbornness to accept what is clearly there.
All of this was facilitated by the lack of interest of the British government in a devolved state’s business.”
All that is missing is the by who?
It definitely included the protestant parliament.
The RUC and B Specials were involved in the murders so it involved the state security forces.
The UUP allegedly paid Gusty Spence to reform the UVF and start killing Catholics who were seeking civil rights.
Ian Paisley was at the core of creating the paranoia and spreading it along with his various paramilitary and political groupings which evolved into the current DUP.
The British army when faced with British unionist crowds and Irish nationalist crowds they soon chose sides and also murdered which was the point of no return in terms of the conflict had now started.
It was unionism mobs who pushed the British army into that situation though.
If anything, you are confirming my opinion is accurate.
Unionism through its leadership will sooner or later have to acknowledge these facts and stop spreading untruths in their narratives which Dawn was pointing out would actually continue to mislead and hurt young loyalists and all for nothing as the political elite will all piss off to England when it all comes tumbling down.
“The UUP allegedly paid Gusty Spence to reform the UVF and start killing Catholics who were seeking civil rights.’
Who made this allegation? Is this the same UUP that formed the government of the day that outlawed the UVF, oversaw the successful apprehension and prosecution of Spence?
Gusty Spence did
“Gusty Spence did”
So there’s only an entirely unreliable source.
AG,
A ‘Unionist’ is in reality a ‘Colonialist’/Colonist’; a person whose very existence in Ireland was and remains to maintain foreign British London colonial rule over a part of the homeland of the Irish nation – let’s drop the misleading euphemism and apply the correct dictionary definition to the cabal of NI colony supremacists to whom Jessica refers.
It’s always struck me, the moderate Allliance Party has existed since what 1970 and still the vast majority of “Unionists/Colonialists” opted to empower the worst bigots of the day i.e the UUP & DUP. It’s time to stop the pretense, most Colonialists were never decent enough to empower the moderate Alliance Party to work with the SDLP to build a fair society. 18 years after the GFA they still spit at the Nationalist/Republican hand of friendship repeatedly extended to them… like Jessica I’ve had enough of the hate and division from a people who were planted here to aid and abet foreign British evil against we Irish and who’ve eversince excelled at it.
Enough is enough, is enough!!!
Root Of All Evil In NI Colony Statelet – harsh truths Unionists must face http://belfast-child.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/root-of-all-evil-in-NI-Statelet.html
We have been here for 400 years this is our home we are not colonists or planters we are people.Does it make us easier to despise if you regard us as planters or colonists?
We have been here longer than the US has existed are the people who went there still colonists?
If the US had not achieved independence from England then who knows but that is irrelevant.
Everyone in Ireland is welcome to Ireland and that is how it should be. We should be able to live here as equals and I do not fear to talk about all of Ireland being in a union with Britain. Why should you fear to talk about all of Ireland being independent from Britain.
Either way it is in all of our interests to have the best possible relationship with Britain.
Why can our political leaders not sit down together in a civilised fashion and discuss how to deal with the border once and for all and how to build the most prosperous and fair future for all of our people together which will guarantee civil and religious freedoms as well as agreeing respect and tolerance for all identities and traditions?
Please tell me why is that so difficult for unionism to accept?
The original colonists in America are now called Americans. They don’t insist on calling themselves British nor do they refer to Britain as the mainland. We have people here whose ancestors have not stood in Britain for three or four centuries but still call themselves British as if to be Irish was a step down the social ladder.
Fiosrach
A point of order, this rejection of Irish identity can be pinpointed to major flourishing points of nationalism in Ireland e.g. partition, the Gaelic League and the Provos’ campaign.
Food for thought.
Yes Robert they are. Ask any indigenous red Indian that were displaced by people from another country that took their land by force…Sound familiar Robert?
“AG,
A ‘Unionist’ is in reality a ‘Colonialist’/Colonist’; a person whose very existence in Ireland was and remains to maintain foreign British London colonial rule over a part of the homeland of the Irish nation – let’s drop the misleading euphemism and apply the correct dictionary definition to the cabal of NI colony supremacists to whom Jessica refers.”
OK, let’s read the dictionary version, I’ve supplied a link below:
******************
noun
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/unionist
1A member of a trade union.
Example sentences
2
(Unionist)
A person, especially a member of a Northern Ireland political party, who is in favour of the union of Northern Ireland with Great Britain.
———
*****************
That’s quite different from your ‘Tim Pat Coogan’ approved’ definition methinks?
“It’s always struck me, the moderate Allliance Party has existed since what 1970 and still the vast majority of “Unionists/Colonialists” opted to empower the worst bigots of the day i.e the UUP & DUP. It’s time to stop the pretense, most Colonialists were never decent enough to empower the moderate Alliance Party to work with the SDLP to build a fair society. 18 years after the GFA they still spit at the Nationalist/Republican hand of friendship repeatedly extended to them… like Jessica I’ve had enough of the hate and division from a people who were planted here to aid and abet foreign British evil against we Irish and who’ve eversince excelled at it.
Enough is enough, is enough!!!”
If you’re thinking exclusively in terms of ‘colonist’ and ‘planters’ then you’re hardly in a position to be determining what’s fair, are you?
Such foamy mouthed-ness is the preserve of those who would sharpen pikes…
Nationalism is a sliding scale of bigotry, yes nationalists don’t like to hear this, they have tried to argue against this on this site and failed miserably to provide a reasonable argument against my opinion other than blindly condemning it as racist which will cut no ice with me.
I have also said, that this does not mean every person who considers themselves a nationalist is a bigot.
The British Isles have always been and always will be one country.
Nationalists here will say it has never been one country before British rule united our people, but while historically the British cultures were stateless with clans and kingships throughout the country, every one of them knew their land was part of theae islands and when needed they would have put personal differences aside and called on one another to defend our shores together. It was because our people were not united as a people that Britain has always been able to conquer or bully the islands.
Partition does not and cannot take away the British birth right.
Northern Ireland may have dual citizenship at present, but this is by agreement and can be taken away at the stroke of a pen.
Though the British constitution does not claim Southern Ireland as part of the British Isles, it does not mean that it isn’t, i simply makes an ass of the British constitution and the whole world would say this was stupid. The inalienable right to be British extends to all parts of the British Isles.
In the same way, the inalienable right to be Irish extends to all parts of Southern Ireland.
Ireland has always been and always will be part of the British Isles.
It is the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act which extends Southern Irish citizenship to Northern Ireland. If Southern Ireland no longer want the hassle of Northern Ireland, they can remove the right to Southern citizenship from every part of Northern Ireland. Another fact that nationalists find hard to swallow and one that their opposition to Brexit has revealed on all its glory.
MT,
Is there a country named ‘(Great) Britain’? No.That’s a political Union of 3 nations label.
The ‘British Isles’ is a ancient English-inspired map reference term, with no legal, political or cultural meaning to the island of Ireland native homeland of the Irish nation.
‘British’ is merely an English label used to extend their supremacist politics, culture and societal values over other nations.
Check the front cover of your EU Passport: the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland… you don’t live in Britain you live in the UK-ish part of Ireland.
“MT,
Is there a country named ‘(Great) Britain’? No.That’s a political Union of 3 nations label.”
Who said there was?
“The ‘British Isles’ is a ancient English-inspired map reference term, with no legal, political or cultural meaning to the island of Ireland native homeland of the Irish nation.”
No it’s a group of islands.
‘”British’ is merely an English label used to extend their supremacist politics, culture and societal values over other nations.”
No it’s not.
“Check the front cover of your EU Passport: the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland… you don’t live in Britain you live in the UK-ish part of Ireland.”
I never said I did.
Very witty and true MT.
Which part do you think is true Robert?
I think my argument is perfectly reasonable.
Tell me what the problem is with the leadership of unionism to acknowledge the hurt they have caused (not the loyalist paramilitaries, but the politicians who unleashed them).
To educate their followers that tolerance and compromise is not surrender but reconciliation just as the leadership of Sinn Fein are doing and have been for some time now – and to no thanks from anyone even their own people due to it being thrown back in their faces by the leadership of unionism.
“The British Isles have always been and always will be one country.”
In what way is the British Isles one country today Robert?
“Partition does not and cannot take away the British birth right.”
There is no British birth right on the island of Ireland, Britain is the other island.
There is entitlement to British citizenship but that is subject to England and can be taken away, so is not an inalienable right where as your Irish identity is and cannot be taken away by any state on this planet.
“If Southern Ireland no longer want the hassle of Northern Ireland, they can remove the right to Southern citizenship from every part of Northern Ireland.”
They more or less have done already in the Good Friday Agreement by removing articles 2 and 3, but while they can take away citizenship, they cannot take away birth right. The Irish nation supersedes the Irish free state.
“I think my argument is perfectly reasonable.
Tell me what the problem is with the leadership of unionism to acknowledge the hurt they have caused (not the loyalist paramilitaries, but the politicians who unleashed them).”
THAT argument is fair enough, but that’s after you moved the goalposts though, your opening line was quite clearly ‘Unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry’ which is not the same as ‘the leaders of unionism’.
They’re two different things; an ideology vs attempts at political manifestations of said ideology.
NOT the same.
Unionists I believe have lived up to their word in this agreement and almost 20 years on I believe, especially in light of the brexit result deserve nationalsm to be at least willing to start talking about the benefits and potential from unification to all of our people in the British Isles.
You would think that, but alas my assertion that nationalism has bigotry at its core is very true.
One nationalst contributor put it very well when he explained the reason nationalism will refuse to even talk about benefits of a United British Isles as follows.
“Nationalism *can’t* discuss it because to discuss it means to have failed. It means discussing the terms of our surrender of identity.”
Once again, google definition of bigotry.
“intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.”
If the leaders of nationalism cannot do what is best for all of our people because every decision, even non pre-conditional talking about certain options are denied to us if it goes against their core ethos which direct from a very moderate and reasonable nationalist remains simply “no surrender”, then are they fit for government at all and is Stormont fit to stand?
I would say no to both and was unable to vote for it, not due to laziness but because I rely on my gut instincts to know what is right and wrong and Stormont and nationalsm are both wrong. It is becoming more urgent that they are both wrapped up. Even in a united British Isles there can be no devolution to Ireland or Northern Ireland. .
The problem coming down the road is change is happening, nationalism is weakening and their bully boy political tactics such as terrorism are no longer working.
The leaders of nationalism have yet to acknowledge their role in starting the conflict or in creating divisions and their continued blatant displays of bigotry and intolerance towards a united British Isles will only encourage the militant elements of nationalism – at times deliberately so.
How long will it be before nationalism once more turns to the gun and threats of violence to get their way?
Ignoring the fact that nationalsm brought the gun into Irish politics, introduced Para militarism to Ireland and started the conflict in the first place is only going to encourage them to do it again.
Is London once again going to leave us to suffer at the hands of nationalist belligerence?
As I pointed out, jessica, any improvement in our conditions in the north are thanks to the British. If they had not stepped in 1969 we would still be underfoot. No tricolours, no fair employment and Orange marchers everywhere. It all boils down to numbers and we haven’t got them. They have intimidated one half and bought the other half.
fiosrach, the British army were brought over here at the request of unionism.
Unionism feared the growth of the catholic population and demands for equality.
They deliberately attacked Catholics, burned homes and created chaos and had totally lost control of the statelet.
Before the British army came over, unionist paramilitaries started bombing power stations. I don’t see how they could have done this without the help of British forces, and that means before the army were officially here.
It was a coordinated attempt to make us leave in large numbers, it failed as they did not expect the vehement response from our community and the British army were needed to restore order to them. If the full might and bank balance of the British army could not deal with us, I don’t share your opinion that unionism alone would have any chance.
I don’t know what we you refer to, but the we that I belong to will soon be in the majority.
The British Army came to Belfast to protect the Catholics in 1969 at the request of the leaders of the Catholic community made directly to Harold Wilson.
“The British Army came to Belfast to protect the Catholics in 1969 at the request of the leaders of the Catholic community made directly to Harold Wilson.”
That is news to me but was before my time, perhaps harry could confirm.
Everything I have read on the subject states the request came from the Government of Northern Ireland.
I cant imagine the British army doing anything at the behest of the leaders of the Catholic community.
I am aware the catholic community welcomed them when they first arrived as they offered a reprieve from the unionist attacks but after a few months they were unwilling to act against unionism and turned on Catholics which was what made conflict unavoidable.
That is what all the facts I can find say on it anyway.
The british army made the situation worse, not better.
I don’t agree with your assessment that things would have been worse without them.
http://www.judecollins.com/2015/12/truth-justice-and-reconciliation-part-3-by-jessica-mcgrann/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson
Wilson’s earlier government had witnessed the outbreak of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. In response to a request from the Government of Northern Ireland, Wilson agreed to deploy the British Army in August 1969 in an effort to restore the peace.
Hary? Confirm? WTF?
Well Jessica . the truth is …The british troops were brought in because the unionist leaders had really lost control of everything They didn’t know what else to do so they had no option but to ask Wilson for help.Civil unrest was an everyday event and it was beginning to look like it was out of control .This was even before there was such a thing as an operational IRA. they were gone .Civil Rights marchers were being gassed and battered on the streets . CS Gas was used ; then there were plastic and rubber bullets which were lethal especially when used close -up .children would gather these up and trade them like you would Pokeman cards Paisleyism was way out of control and the police (RUC) were acting in a partial way against nationalists because …well because they had to choose between their kinfolk and relations who were mostly of their same seedbed, religion , Orange Order or whatever …. or nationalists who already distrusted them .Paisleyites had attacked and organised anti-Civil Rights demos and were ready to use violence at every turn . Can you imagine how daft an “anti -Civil Rights” stance seemed to anyone with a functioning brain . The very idea of being against Civil Rights seemed like something only a lunatic would support so many very bright students naturally assumed that they were up against buffons and hicks at best ,or phychos at worst. Very articulate people on the Left could see exactly what was happening.People like Bernadette Devlin and Eamon McCann could be seen regularly on television articulating the nationalist point -of -view. Ian Paisley looked like a fascist demagogue by comparison .There was no contest really It was brute force and ignorance versus intellectual heft .Brute force and ignorance had greater numbers.
When the army arrived they were first greeted warmly by nationalists and Catholics as being protectors with no other axe to grind and were seen as the British government finally taking note of the baleful shenanigans of the puppet-state that Unionist Stormont actually was.and were treated well in Belfast initially.People thought the british Government had finally focussed on the horror of the situation. The young british soldiers hadn’t a clue as to the mad complexity they were bundled into .
Here’s the lowdown which can easily be found in newspapers of the day and is freely available in many books:
“During 12–17 August 1969, Northern Ireland was rocked by intense political and sectarian rioting. There had been sporadic violence throughout the year arising from the civil rights campaign, which was demanding an end to discrimination against Irish Catholics. Civil rights marches were repeatedly attacked by both Ulster Protestant loyalists and by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), a unionist and largely Protestant police force.
The disorder led to the Battle of the Bogside in Derry, a three-day riot in the Bogside district between the RUC and the nationalist/Catholic residents. In support of the Bogsiders, nationalists and Catholics launched protests elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Some of these led to attacks by loyalists working alongside the police. The most bloody rioting was in Belfast, where seven people were killed and hundreds more wounded. Scores of houses, most of them owned by Catholics, as well as businesses and factories were burned-out. In addition, thousands of mostly Catholic families were driven from their homes. In certain areas, the RUC helped the loyalists and failed to protect Catholic areas. Events in Belfast have been viewed by some as a pogrom against the Catholic and nationalist minority…
The British Army was deployed to restore order and state control and peace lines began to be built to separate the two sides. The events of August 1969 are widely seen as the beginning of the thirty-year conflict known as the Troubles.”
It was then that the legend of housewives vying to make tea for the young british soldiers began. That soon changed and slogans such as “NO TEA HERE!” began to appear on gable walls.The British government were absolutely appalled at the mess thta Stormont had made of their tenure to this point and thought it indefensible .Harold Wilson as PM had a plan that the only way to sort out the situation was to eventually re-unite Ireland but when Edward Heath and the Conservatives got into power at the beginning of the 1970’s that plan was shelved.
I knew the British army were welcomed in catholic communities when they first arrived but wasn’t aware the request to Wilson to send them over came from within the Catholic community.
Most texts say the request came from Stormont because they had lost control and the context in which they came over was to restore order to Stormont.
Thanks for the clarification Harry.
There are many incidents which have been nicely buried in the “historical script” of our lives . Many forget neat , succinct incidents such as when Bernadette Devlin, as the youngest MP in history crossed the floor of the house of Commons and slapped Home Secretary Reginald Mauldling across the face when he had the temerity and foolishness to propagandise the claim that the parachute regiment fired in self defence and did not in fact murder the victims of Bloody Sunday in 1972. That particular ball of wool took many years to unravel so people can forgot the details.
How many remember when Edward Heath suspended Stoemont in March 1972?Just ask yourself wht Edward Heath PM had to do that.When Direct Rule was imposed on Stormont it staggered Ulster Unionists and their very Right wing conservative friends.Willie Whitelaw became the Secretary of State with control over the RUC and the army in Northern Ireland.Of course the Ulster unionists opposed it immediately because it was an instant loss of power.
The Guardian wrote :
“For Mr Heath, the decision represents a calculated risk, in the belief that the transfer of responsibility for law and order and the phasing out of internment by measured stages will provide the opportunity for the non-violent representatives of the vast majority of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland to come forward at last, and take part in the all-party talks on the future of Ulster which Ministers have been vainly offering to them since last summer. The immediate response was a solemn promise from Mr Gerry Fitt, Social Democratic and Labour Party MP for West Belfast, that his party would examine the proposals “not with the aim of any political gain but in the interests of the whole community in Northern Ireland”.
Mr Fitt is now in a position to tell his SDLP colleagues at home in Northern Ireland that the Government’s new proposals meet almost all of their demands, and represent virtually total victory for their stand. The signs are that they will indeed respond to the appeal to join in talks, or face the inevitable accusation of total irresponsibility.
The package which Mr Heath put before the Commons yesterday covered three main points. The first two were straightforward proposals for:
1. The release of some hundreds of internees in the next few weeks, as the first step in phasing out internment altogether; and,
2. The creation of new procedures to conduct regular plebiscites in Northern Ireland as the ultimate test of opinion on Ulster’s continued status as part of the United Kingdom. Mr Heath was empathic that there could be no change in this status without the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland, or without the eventual consent of a revived Northern Ireland Parliament. But the key passage in Mr Heath’s package was:
3.The proposal to transfer the entire responsibility for security, and law and order, from Stormont to Westminster. It was this which was flatly rejected by Mr Faulkner earlier in the week, backed by the unanimous decision of his Cabinet to resign en bloc if Mr Heath persisted in his demand.”
Yes…those were the days……!
Awk Jessica are you flogging this old horse again.
I know there’s no point trying to convince you that Unionism is simply a single political point of view (just like Nationalism) as you are so blinded by your hatred that it’s frankly pointless.
But why is your anger so focused on Unionists for not talking reunification, when Nationalist parties won’t even give it serious talk. I’ve never heard much from SF,SDLP,FF or FG on what exactly unification would look like. They certainly don’t need Unionism to talk about what there vision would be, nor could Unionism stop them setting out there vision.
Perhaps you should ask Nationalism why no chat on what reunification would be? Would we simply be bolted on to the current ROI and take are share of TD’s, or would the relationship be radically diffrent? I’ve never heard to many details from Nationalism
Scott, where exactly am I espousing hatred towards you Scott?
Everything I am saying is based on facts and more accurately reflects what is going on in your own community than you seem to be aware off.
The long term failure within the leadership of unionism to acknowledge the factual history of the conflict, to address the hatred of Irish nationalism in your community and to do more to ensure unionism does not resort to militancy through genuine reconciliation has only one logical outcome. Another violent reaction when things inevitably go against you, which the demographics show is unavoidable.
Nationalism does not want to impose unification on unionism, there are no pre conditions and nothing is not on the table.
The whole point of talking is to find accommodation and get 100% buy in or as close to it as is achievable. The whole point is to build a better and more prosperous Ireland that is ours, in which we have an equal share and an equal interest in supporting.
You are not going to convince anyone who lived through the conflict that unionism is only a point of view.
What I am telling you has to happen. It is not about hatred, but genuine desire to accommodate one another and to reach true reconciliation and acceptance of one another.
If you are saying unionism is incapable of anything less than British rule in Ireland then you have already lost and all you are going to do is encourage another militant response to maintain control of a smaller part of Ireland.
“I know there’s no point trying to convince you that Unionism is simply a single political point of view (just like Nationalism) as you are so blinded by your hatred that it’s frankly pointless”
Scott, Unionism is nothing like Irish nationalism. For a start, Irish Nationalism didn’t have a systematic campaign of discrimination and sectarianism against Catholics, but Ulster Unionism certainly did. This system was in place for over 50 years and undoubtedly was the cause of the Troubles.
The different approaches to reconciliation between Unionism and Nationalism couldn’t be more different. Unionism has literally done nothing for reconciliation, literally nothing. In fact, they have engaged in acts that has been deliberately against reconciliation. Unionist councils still don’t implement equality, they still haven’t elected a SF Lord Mayor, they still discriminate against minority Nationalist communities, instead of showing respect for the 1916 100th Anniversary they did all they could to attack it by refusing funding for events, by publically attacking it in the media, etc.
Compare that to the actions of Nationalism. Martin McGuinness has met Queen Elizabeth at least 4 times already. Gerry Adams met Prince Charles once. Nationalist councils have a rotation type system where Unionist Mayors are regularly elected despite being a minority. In Derry accommodation was made for Orange Parades despite their past sectarian displays in the City (Can you imagine Larne or Lisburn doing the same for Republicans? That’s the equivalent). Funding for Unionist events have been given by Nationalist councils, etc. Its even been said that Queen Elizabeth II has done more for reconciliation here in the past 5 years than Unionism has in 50! Peter Robinson and Nelson McCausland were even in West Belfast, surrounded by Nationalists and they were treated respectfully. Compare that to the attempted lynching of a Sinn Fein Lord Mayor of Belfast in East Belfast in 2013.
Its also important to point out that people in Britain hold unfavourable views towards Ulster Unionism. When the Scottish Referendum 2014 campaign was going on, the “Better Together” campaign wanted to distance themselves from the DUP/UUP and the Orange Order. During the 2015 British General Election there was concern in Britain at the prospect of the DUP having any influence at Westminster. Deputy PM Nick Clegg even publically said on a BBC interview he didn’t want the DUP to have any influence. Jonathan Powell, Tony Blairs ex advisor, even said during the GE 2015 count (available on youtube) that the “Nutcases” on the DUP back benches would be a “Nightmare” for any Government.
None of this is “Hatred” Scott, its simply fact. But there is absolutely no equivalence between Unionism and Nationalism. As I said before, the media spin of “Both sides are as bad as each other” is utterly ridiculous.
Jessica
It would appear that you have quoted me in defence of your opinion:
“Unionism *can’t* discuss it because to discuss it means to have failed. It means discussing the terms of our surrender of identity.”
That being the case, I suppose I should make a reply.
However, out of respect for Jude’s recent loss, I shall refrain from any comment until next week, at the earliest.
Some things really are more important.
Yes Peter, I concur totally with the statement you made, but it does also back up perfectly what I am saying.
If unionism is simply a preference in support of the union, then how on earth can such a simple preference have an identity, and even worse, how can it also be an ideology which considers even simply discussing unification and any potential economic benefits to all of our people as a surrender of identity and a failure.
Simple preferences do not have agendas and do not create such polarised identities.
You do realise that moderate and reasonable people such as yourself in even regurgitating this statement as if it were acceptable are actually reinforcing emotions of being under attack and of possible defeat.
You do realise that loyalism has yet to decommission and more weapons are currently being brought into loyalist communities and the biggest drive in retraining and refilling the ranks of the unionist paramilitaries with young people as well as heightened propagation of hate speak in these communities who are openly saying it is time for the guns to come back out etc…
The leadership of unionism MUST do more to address this.
Ignoring it is allowing it to happen and even encouraging it in the same old ways unionism has always operated. As Ian Paisley said, the DUP will provide political cover for loyalist paramilitary actions. Is that still the position of unionisms largest party?
Those days are over. We cannot allow them to return and Dublin needs to wake up and seek out a voice of reason with unionism before it is too late.
Dublin has supported and sided with unionism, it cannot now wash its hands off the resurging militancy currently taking place or the responsibility if my community once again suffers over the lack of leadership and decency within unionism.
Jessica
I fear there is too much repetition in my reply, but there is an important point to be made.
You continue to pursue your view that Unionism, in refusing to discuss the terms of a United Ireland, is bigoted – I will explain why you are wrong, and will try to keep to the point of your use of my quote.
The full context of that quote was a discussion you raised about the problem of Partition, and when you expressed the view, “I still do not understand how unionism as a whole refuses to even discuss it”
And my answer was (and it was very clear):
“In terms of the United Ireland aspect of that question, Unionism *can’t* discuss it because to discuss it means to have failed. It means discussing the terms of our surrender of identity.”
It’s very straightforward: discussing the possibility of a United Ireland is the opposite of Unionism – it can’t be other.
In the same way, UKIP would fail if it were to discuss how the UK could remain in the EU.
Republicanism would fail if it were to discuss how it might strengthen the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and how we might all be loyal subjects of the Crown.
I don’t expect either UKIP or Republicanism to do those things – indeed they *can’t* do those things without denying themselves.
And yet you expect Unionism to discuss a United Ireland as if it were a requirement – it is not – and then you portray it as intolerant and bigoted for not doing so.
But for any party to enter discussions which could only bring about its own demise is an incoherent position for any political party to take.
It’s a simple point, and has nothing to do with bigotry.
And all of this means that your argument falls under the weight of its own stereotype.
Are Republicans are intolerant because they will not discuss the continued, and strengthened position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and as loyal citizens of the British Crown.?
Clearly not – it is not intolerance, it is a principled stand.
Personally I find your immovable commitment to a United Ireland commendable; in the same way I find Unionism’s immovable commitment to the United Kingdom commendable.
Neither are signs of bigotry. As you say, No Surrender!
Beyond that, there might well be *pragmatic* reasons for engaging in such a discussion (i.e the deck being stacked against us), but there is no requirement.
Peter, I have never once suggested unionism should discuss the terms of a United Ireland, and I would not expect them to show up to discuss such terms, especially while they remain the largest party.
And for the record that is not why I consider unionism bigoted and I have never once suggested otherwise..
It is the refusal to discuss what is best for our people, that is not only unionist community but the quite possibly soon to be majority nationalist community.
I have said numerous times quite clearly there should be no preconditions. Now that you all see what I am saying is true, you are making up situations where pre conditions apply to show how it might not be bigoted by saying republicans feel the same way.
You are even posing questions to me but giving the assumed answers within the same sentence.
Well let me be clear.
I am not suggesting talks should be about terms for unification, or how to strengthen the union, or loyalty to the crown, but to determine which is in the best interests of the people, in terms of a better and more prosperous future, where bigotry and intolerance are no more and where we can all be proud of the land we call home equally.
That is not a bad aspiration, yet it is not achievable becuase the leadership of one community refuses to discuss anything outsode of its comfort zone.
I want unionism to put forward the reasons it thinks the union is the best option, and nationalism to put forward its reasons.
Usually the best options are somewhere in between.
Since Jude has been posting my blogs on this site, I have looked at all of Ireland within a union with Britain, an independent northern Ireland and a clean break from Britain altogether, cutting all ties with England and our past troubled history with them either as an independent nation or within the EU. I am not particularly keen on the EU but I would expect all of our representatives to discuss its benefits.
I will say to you once again, the reason we are not discussing the benefits of unification (not the terms), is not a principled stand but simply down to the intransigence and bigoted stance from unionism.
Jessica
I’m afraid you are saying a number of things at the same time.
I had already read a number of other comments prior to responding to you, and have read others since. Among the things you have said are,
“I would be very confident that an overwhelming and vast majority of all of the people of Britain would support discussions within Ireland on unification.
Almost the entire unionist family in Ireland if not all, consider this as surrender and hold a bigoted view on it.”
There it is clear, crystal clear that you link ‘discussion’ with “unification”: “discussion on unification”. So I ask again, why are Unionists *required* to support such discussions, and in what way are they bigoted for not wanting the discussion?
Furthermore, there is not a hills of beans of difference between me using the word “terms” and you using words about discussing “what is best for our people” – you do mean Irish Unity, don’t you?
Time and time again you speak of Ireland being one country, about Ireland not being Britain, about everything British being removed – in every single way those are the ‘terms’ off the discussion.
And with regard to your comment below, if it were not so serious it would be laughable:
Do I really need to ask, or have discussions about, what Republicanism think of being loyal to the British Crown – the answer is in the name – Republican! The other answer is found in the comments section of this website.
They might as well say, ‘sure, we’ll talk about being loyal to something we have no intention of being loyal to’, and how on earth would that be a discussion which amounted to much anything?
Really, Jessica, you bluff has been called.
Peter, read all you want but I am not trying to bluff anyone.
I would be quite confident that the vast majority of people in Britain would not only support discussions within Ireland on unification but would support us in achieving it? Britain is Irelands friend in todays world. Unionism in Ireland is if anything an embarrassment to modern Britain.
I am also confident that if there were discussions that yes, the outcome would be that unification is in our best interests in terms of growth potential, in terms of prosperity, in terms of building better health and education services, in terms of reconciliation, in terms of guaranteeing peace for future generations and in uniting our people throughout this island. .
If you are saying the reason unionism fears such talks is because they also believe that unification is in our best interests and simply don’t want the people to be aware of it as they hold the union link as more important than the wellbeing of our people, then we would be in complete agreement as that is exactly what I am saying.
But just so you are completely clear, if the outcome of those talks was that the union would deliver more for our people, then you would guarantee the union was safe into the future as I can guarantee you that Catholics would get behind what was in their best interests.
Now as for the crown. You are not going to convince me or any republican that the crown means didley squat. I don’t give a shit about the royal family.
In fact most people in Britain don’t give a damn about the monarchy, it is no more than a tourist attraction.
But you missing the point of the benefit of such discussions in the first place.
It would be up to unionists to put across the importance the crown and whatever else is important to you and to make sure that this is included in any agreement.
Lets put it another way, lets say unionism maintain its intransigent approach and fight right to the bitter end.
First of all, militant loyalism will likely give a last hurrah and people will die over it.
Secondly, after that happens, don’t expect anyone from my community to tolerate anything British in our midst and since a nationalist majority is approaching, don’t expect then for us a treat you any better then. In those circumstances, I would strongly oppose any talks with unionists other than where to get your tickets to Britain.
I will say once again, I would prefer to make a deal with unionism while you are at your strongest, not when you are in a minority.
The reason, I believe it would be in all of our bet interests as I do not want any more violence and I would love to see real reconciliation.
You can keep looking for bluff or you can take me at face value and listen to what I am actually saying. I am really not that complicated.
“But just so you are completely clear, if the outcome of those talks was that the union would deliver more for our people, then you would guarantee the union was safe into the future as I can guarantee you that Catholics would get behind what was in their best interests.”
So all this talk about Ireland and it not being British and Britain not being your country all comes down to… what? The economy? Education? Reconciliation?
You would sacrifice your ideal of a United self-governing Ireland for…what being delivered? A prosperous United Kingdom?
And as for this talk about militant loyalism, please, leave it out: they don’t represent me, never did, never had one iota of support from me, were never defending my community, haven’t offered anyone anything but misery, committed murder after murder, have no moral or political credibility…. must I go on?
Ireland is not and never will be part of Britain Peter.
If that is what you want it is simply not possible.
If you want any part of Ireland to have a union with Britain. then is has to be by consent and you will never achieve consent by refusing point blank to even talk about these things.
Republicans have accepted the principal of consent and have been very patient with unionism in its refusal to discuss what consent there is at various stages.
Sooner or later there will be a referendum, and we wont forget the intransigence being displayed or the lack of respect shown for other options than the unionist agenda.
And you cannot disassociate yourself from militant unionism any more than republicans can if they behaved in an intransigent manner.
If Sinn Fein responded to unionism the way it treats them, and there was any republican violence, there would be uproar.
You on the other hand are quite happy to tolerate the bigotry and hatred displayed by the leadership of unionism who have always flirted with militant unionism. They created it for heavens sake.
Even James Molyneax said Paisley and the DUP standing on the Ulster hall and talking about mobilisation while wearing paramilitary headdress was a not ambiguous but a call to arms.
Unionism cannot wash its hands off its past. If you choose to be a unionist, then you must take responsibility for what has come before.
I am happy to do likewise for republican violence.
Jessica
“And you cannot disassociate yourself…
Oh absolutely I can, and do.
“You on the other hand are quite happy to tolerate the bigotry and hatred displayed by the leadership of unionism who have always flirted with militant unionism.”
Am I? The evidence above would suggest otherwise.
“Even James Molyneax said Paisley and the DUP standing on the Ulster hall and talking about mobilisation while wearing paramilitary headdress was a not ambiguous but a call to arms.”
And funnily enough, I hadn’t realised I was there – but I suppose I must have been if you think I supported it.
You can accuse me, and others of supporting “militant Unionism” all you want, but that won’t make any of it true. Those who were not involved do not need to take responsibility for what they did not do.
“I am happy to do likewise for republican violence.”
I’d rather you just condemned it – like I did loyalist violence above.
A comment about Bishop Edward Daly appeared on the BBC website yesterday:
“Bishop Edward’s bravery was also apparent in his lived conviction that violence from any side during the Troubles was futile and could never be morally justified.”
I think that’s clear enough.
“Republicanism would fail if it were to discuss how it might strengthen the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and how we might all be loyal subjects of the Crown.”
I don’t see it that way.
Perhaps the result of the conversation would be that it simply isn’t the case and a majority of this part of the world simply do not want to loyal subjects of the Crown.
I think all options should be on the table for discussion and nothing excluded for bigoted reasons from either side.
I guess, to answer the final question Jessica, indubitably!
“How long will it be before unionism once more turns to the gun and threats of violence to get their way?”
Its just a matter of time Jessica, we already see the signs of it happening. The Irish News reported just a few days ago about UDA recruitment posters going up in Tyrone. But this hasn’t been the first time, there has been similar posters in Carrickfergus and Bangor. There was a mural painted where it was urging young people to join the UDA because “Its better to die on your feet than live on your knees in an Irish Republic”. Remember, the UDA are meant to be on ceasefire and decommissioning but instead they are recruiting. In North Belfast the UVF did a show of strength just a few days ago and the PSNI sat back and didn’t interfere or arrest anyone. The local residents (all Protestants BTW) has complained time and time again about the PSNI’s inaction against UVF/UDA intimidation and crime in the area and even want an investigation.
Of course all this is just the tip of the iceberg. The UVF in East Belfast just before the 12th July 2016 went round Polish and Irish Catholic homes “inviting” (another word for intimidating) them to fly 1916 Somme flags. The families living in these houses contacted the police and even a UUP representative and what was done? As usual, nothing. The PSNI has made clear the UDA/UVF are still engaged in murder, crime, drug dealing, intimidation, sectarian/racist attacks, etc but that didn’t stop Secretary of State Theresa Villiers have a photo took with Bangors UDA Commander, the same UDA that brutally attacked a community worker (a genuine Community Worker, btw) for wanting the removal of paramilitary flags at a play park in Bangor a few months ago.
But the most interesting thing has got to be the DUP’s actions. According to SpotlightNI, the DUP asked an Alliance Stormont Minister to bypass normal procedures and give a cash grant to a UDA linked group that has a known UDA Commander working in it. This was the same UDA commander Theresa Villiers had her photo took with. The Alliance Minister said the request from the DUP was “very strange”, especially the part where they asked for normal procedures to be bypassed….
In my mind, the DUP/UUP/UVF/UDA are all connected. They have been very cosy for so many years. At the centre of it all, maybe the “glue” binding them all together is the Orange Order.
“Is Dublin once again going to leave us to suffer at the hands of unionist belligerence?”
Well we shouldn’t depend on Dublin for a start, we should protect ourselves from any form of intimidation, regardless of where it comes. I think the past 4 decades proved the Catholic community can do that, not to mention we’re a much larger community in 2016 than in 1966, soon to be the largest.
I think Dublin will be getting more involved in the North. We see polls being done and showing 65% of southerners want Irish Unity in the latest poll. We see 27% of the Irish Olympic team consisting of people from the North (Paddy Barnes even being the flag bearer), compared to just 2% of the British Olympic team having northerners in it (just 8 people). There is actually more of a chance of Gold medals being won by Northerners than Southerners at this Olympics (specifically in Boxing, thanks to Paddy Barnes and Michael Conlon. Conlon was a year below me at School, I remember him well) We see Fine Gael/Fianna Fail calling for a border poll if there’s signs a majority may vote for Irish Unity (which there is). A majority of Fine Gael Youth voted for a border poll. I see a lot more integration North and South happening.
We need to realize that whilst we have partitionists in the Dail, we have more friends than enemies there.
Well stated, Ryan, you have summarized expertly the reality of unionist intransigence and bigotry which continue to blight progress here despite the GFA being signed over 20 years ago. “Times Are A-Changing” as the words of a classic Bob Dylan song puts it and they certainly are apt for the impending constitutional changes which will overturn the status quo in GB and Ireland.
Thanks Gearoid.
I think some Unionists are not understanding what Jessica is saying though, judging by their comments here. She isn’t talking about Unionists, she is talking about the ideology, aka Unionism. Yes of course she is saying many Unionists are bigots due to this ideology but not all of them.
As I have stated on here many times the root of political Unionism is a form of Protestant fundamentalism, I think that is what Jessica is trying to say. The Orange Order being at the heart of political Unionism makes this obvious enough. They call the shots.
Its hard for anyone to have the courage to look in the mirror and see and admit their flaws. I don’t even think Unionism is anywhere near that stage yet, they still don’t accept they have major flaws or, at the worst, they defend their flaws and have no intention of changing them. There is even videos by Loyalists on youtube (very crudely made) trying to defend the burning out of Catholic families in the 1960’s.
When it comes to reconciliation, cross community discussions, seeing things from other’s points of view, respecting others narratives of the past, etc I don’t think political Unionism is up for it. Its a “Doomed” ideology. I think they would rather fade away than reach out the hand of friendship to Catholics. 400 years of sectarianism (now described as “Culture”) isn’t easy to uproot and wipe away.
Unionist “Victims Campaigner” Kenny Donaldson on the Nolan show on Thursday even openly admitted he doesn’t want freedom of speech for Republicans. The recording is available on Stephen Nolans twitter. The topic of debate was the Bobby Sands documentary which Kenny, Gregory Campbell and Nelson McCausland didn’t even watch yet but yet they were on opposing it…….This is why Jessica is very accurate in describing Unionism as bigotry.
Thank you Ryan, that is exactly what I am attempting to relay (obviously not very well), and hopefully also to encourage moderate unionists to see that the future is not win lose, but that we should be seeking a win win.
Win, win is simply not possible if unionism hold the believe that even talking about the benefits of unification for everyone is surrender.
That is basically our way or the highway, and if they are instilling that believe in a community rife with weapons that have never decommissioned and are encouraged by their political leaders in the merits of the orange order and burning flags and effigies on bonfires, it doesn’t take a genius to realise where that is taking us.
Post brexit, the threat to the UK which was not of our making has resulted in a hardening of attitudes in the unionist community.
It is irresponsible for any political representative to allow this to continue and none can wash their hands off it when it results in loyalist guns coming out once again including those in Dublin who have allowed this situation to develop.
Jessica
I am just about a unionist (e.g. vote pro-UK) but every time I read one of your posts I find them so blood-boilingly blinkered and closed to reason that I go straight back to flegger mode and forget about the possibility of a UI (which is a sensible idea all things considered).
If you force people away from the idea of a united Ireland then….?
My views are not blinkered AG, they are accurate.
You would like to view unionism here as it is over the water but that is not the case and you know it.
When I say unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry, you know I mean in Ireland and unionism have proven that over and over again and still do. That is all it is over here.
But since you claim you are a unionist, justify to me how the leadership of unionism can take a position that in no circumstances whatsoever can the topic of Irish unification be discussed with its partners in government as it would be tantamount to surrender.
Tell me how you can justify that stance especially in light that post brexit, the border could cripple what economy we have?
I challenge you to convince everyone here how that is not a bigoted view?
I think I have made more than an adequate case as to how it is.
“I am just about a unionist (e.g. vote pro-UK) but every time I read one of your posts I find them so blood-boilingly blinkered and closed to reason that I go straight back to flegger mode and forget about the possibility of a UI (which is a sensible idea all things considered).
If you force people away from the idea of a united Ireland then….?”
Just in relation to this point you are making AG, that by expressing my opinions that unionism in Ireland is intransigent when it clearly is and that its stance against even talking about unification in a divided society when half the population want unification if not more post brexit is bigoted, which I genuinely believe it to be. Then your own stance on this is hardly much better.
What exactly are you trying to say. Don’t upset the unionist line or we will be even more against unification?
Stop rocking the boat, we are the master race here, your opinions don’t matter, they are not worth our time discussing?
You are hardly convincing anyone that unionism is even capable of tolerance or showing respect in relation to nationalist aspirations.
We are people here too you know. We do matter.
“My views are not blinkered AG, they are accurate.
You would like to view unionism here as it is over the water but that is not the case and you know it.”
No. You said UNIONISM. You did not say Paisleyism, UUPism, or specify, you said UNIONISM.
That is on you.
If you wish to blanket brand an entire ideology that is your beeswax but you discredit yourself.
You choose to ignore people who are pro-UK and non-bigoted.
That’s YOUR interpretation.
You choose to be choosey, that’s YOUR choice, not an accepted definition.
Some people choose to define republicanism by semtex, child murder and bombs, that is their blinkered choice.
You belong with such people, you’re all equally blinkered.
“No. You said UNIONISM. You did not say Paisleyism, UUPism, or specify, you said UNIONISM.”
No I didn’t, because I mean unionism, not Paisleyism or UUPism.
I mean the unionism that brought the gun into Irish politics, I mean the same Unionism that has a long history of bigotry, discrimination and violence in Ireland.
If you are trying to use the democratic unionism in Britain to wash the hands of the past acts by unionism in Ireland so modern unionism does not have to acknowledge them, then I am telling you now, NO CHANCE!!.
“Just in relation to this point you are making AG, that by expressing my opinions that unionism in Ireland is intransigent when it clearly is and that its stance against even talking about unification in a divided society when half the population want unification if not more post brexit is bigoted, which I genuinely believe it to be. Then your own stance on this is hardly much better.”
You didn’t say ‘unionism in Ireland’, you said ‘unionism’.
Even then ‘unionism in Ireland’ is very divided, you choose to talk about only the awful aspect of severe unionism and deny that there is a decent aspect to unionism.
“What exactly are you trying to say. Don’t upset the unionist line or we will be even more against unification?”
Nope.
“Stop rocking the boat, we are the master race here, your opinions don’t matter, they are not worth our time discussing?”
Nope
“You are hardly convincing anyone that unionism is even capable of tolerance or showing respect in relation to nationalist aspirations.”
Really? I wish for a pan Gaelic cultural revival, discussions on a UI, restrictions on parades and bonfires and an application of common sense. I resent blanket branding and lazy labelling.
“We are people here too you know. We do matter.”
I never said you didn’t this is the worst example of gallery playing.
Ryan
The ideology of unionism is ‘maintaining the union and NI’s place therein’.
That’s THAT.
If it has mutated and warped into more malignant aspects then this should be addressed in a more specific manner rather than blanket branding an idea that includes millions, if not tens of millions of people across the UK.
“If it has mutated and warped into more malignant aspects then this should be addressed in a more specific manner rather than blanket branding an idea that includes millions, if not tens of millions of people across the UK.”
The majority of unionists across the UK do not support the union being imposed on anyone AG. It is a democracy there.
This is a straw man argument you are introducing.
I would be very confident that an overwhelming and vast majority of all of the people of Britain would support discussions within Ireland on unification.
Almost the entire unionist family in Ireland if not all, consider this as surrender and hold a bigoted view on it.
As I said, unionism in Ireland has little in common with support for the union in britain.
Ryan
“As I have stated on here many times the root of political Unionism is a form of Protestant fundamentalism.”
Unfortunately your use of labels is all over the place here, but as a Unionist and someone with an understanding of the Protestant Church (including Fundamentalism), perhaps we can make a bit of progress.
Protestant Fundamentalism is one religious position within Protestant Christianity, and not a political point of view – and cannot, therefore, be the root of Unionism.
Indeed within Unionism – a political position – there are all sorts of religious views and none.
Now, might it be accurate to say that religious fundamentalists are more likely to be political fundamentalists, perhaps, but event that is not always true.
Either way, to say that “the root of political Unionism is a form of Protestant fundamentalism.” simply does not stack up.
“Unfortunately your use of labels is all over the place here, but as a Unionist and someone with an understanding of the Protestant Church (including Fundamentalism), perhaps we can make a bit of progress. Protestant Fundamentalism is one religious position within Protestant Christianity, and not a political point of view – and cannot, therefore, be the root of Unionism.Indeed within Unionism – a political position – there are all sorts of religious views and none. Now, might it be accurate to say that religious fundamentalists are more likely to be political fundamentalists, perhaps, but event that is not always true. Either way, to say that “the root of political Unionism is a form of Protestant fundamentalism.” simply does not stack up.”
PF, you must understand that Ryan’s ‘understanding’ of the Protestant community is derived from Susan McKay’s horrible book ‘Northern Protestants’, which is series of interviews with an unrepresentative sample of Protestants, most of whom have quite extreme views. Bear this in mind when reading Ryan’s faux-authoritative opinions.
PS. He also thinks Brexit means the GFA is defunct and that UK passport holders will need a visa to holiday in Spain.
Thank you for the reference, MT.
“In my mind, the DUP/UUP/UVF/UDA are all connected. They have been very cosy for so many years. At the centre of it all, maybe the “glue” binding them all together is the Orange Order. ”
The Orange order are in total disarray Ryan. They are more focussed on their dwindling numbers, loss if influence in the corridors of power and basically trying desperately to retain any relevance in modern Ireland. Ironically they are prospering better in the south than they are in the north. Probably not by accident either.
If you are looking for glue binding them all together, I would look no further than MI5 who are also still recruiting on both sides and sleeping remnants of FRU
how long will it be before unionism once more turns to the gun and threats of violence to get their way…….sure that cant happen again the police will protect you,,lol..is dublin going to leave us to suffer at the hands of unionist belligerence.yep.as somebody said g,f,a.got fuxk all.
You condemn Unionists a lot for their violence and their bigotry Ryan yet you openly stated that you supported the IRA and their violent actions i wonder if you could square that circle?
From my earliest memories as a child Robert, the conflict was already started back in the 70s.
I witnessed the RUC and army raids on our homes, the brutality of the RUC in beating everyone in their way, wrecking homes, shooting rubber bullets at point blank range into children and our young people.
We relied on the IRA back then, we looked to them for help when the state abandoned us and attacked us.
I now know that we got to this position not because of working class loyalism but because of the direction and guidance of elite unionism.
I likewise understand completely why a unionist who witnessed their community being attacked similarly would defend itself and that is how the conflict evolved and spiralled out of control.
We can live with conflict when it is pushed upon us as we don’t have much choice.
But now we have peace and I would condemn totally any violence from any source, in particular from my own community.
I have always condemned dissident violence and I consider them more interested in themselves than what is best for our community or our people as a whole.
What annoys me the most now, especially post Brexit, is the unionist intransigence in which they refuse to acknowledge the actions of political unionism in creating the circumstances which brought this slaughter to us, and after decades of peace are still talking about no surrender before they would even talk about the benefits of uniting our country.
That is a considerably different message than Sinn Fein is giving to my community and to the world yet unionism get off Scott free once again.
We now have a choice not to return to violence, and unionism needs to do more to ensure that doesn’t happen.
Its current stance is not acceptable to me and is not fit to lead a Stormont assembly.
jessica
Why would Unionists want to discuss the benefits of a United Ireland? They are Unionists.
Should Republicans be condemned for having no interest in discussing the benefits of remaining in the UK? Of course not, they are Republicans.
And again with the sliding scale of bigotry.
What is at the lower end of this scale? No bigotry or a little bit of bigotry?
Are even the most moderate Unionists a bit bigoted?
Does the same apply to Nationalists/Republicans?
Nonsense on stilts I’m afraid.
Gio, for the exact same reason Sinn Fein would help administer British rule in Ireland.
To acknowledge there are two communities here as accepted in the Good Friday Agreement and to do their best to lead in the interested of both and to ensure conflict does not once again come upon us, once again, in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement.
Why does the Good Friday Agreement not apply to unionism?
And yes, republicans should be prepared to discuss the benefits of remaining in the UK. It would be equally as bigoted not to.
Unfortunately it is not nonsense and you are defending the indefensible.
Take your blinkers off and you may even see this.
jessica
Of course the 2 sides are administering British rule, and Unionists sit on North/South bodies.
That is the agreement.
Now if you are saying they could be more wholehearted about it I agree absolutely.
But you seem to be saying Unionists should be open to becoming Republicans and vice versa. Why should they?
I am sure most of the Republicans on this blog would say they would never consider becoming Unionist nor would they have any interest in considering the benefits.
That does not make them bigots any more than Unionists are.
If you are serious about what you are saying then define your terms.
Who is on this sliding scale of bigotry? All Unionists?
If we find one Unionist who is not bigoted does that invalidate your theory?
No gio, that is only part of the agreement.
The Good Friday Agreement is a peace accord that acknowledges two traditions on this island equally and will only work by both sides acting in the best interests of all sections of our community.
Unionism is failing to love up to that agreement and views everything in a bigoted and narrow minded way.
Now if Unionism want to simply ignore the wishes of what will soon be a majority in the north and refuse point blank to discuss options that go against their desires to keep British rule in Ireland, fine but yes that very much makes unionism bigoted, just as bigoted as the orange order refusing to talk to residents before attempting to impose their sectarian parades past their doorsteps.
Anyone including yourself who supports this refusal to even talk about these clear issues in a divided society is clearly bigoted.
jessica
You are very free with the bigot word.
All Unionists are bigots as they must be on your sliding scale somewhere.
AG who does not seem like a bigot to me must be a bigot.
Everyone who votes Unionist in any way must be a bigot.
I am also a bigot because I argue that Unionists do not want to be Republicans.
As well as looking up dictionary definitions of ‘Unionist’ and ‘bigot’, you might try looking up ‘logic’ too.
That is rubbish gio and you know it.
Of course I don’t expect unionists to be republicans, I don’t even expect republicans to be republicans.
I am simply Irish and want what is best for all of the Irish people, that is all of this island.
But I expect all of the Irish people, whether they be unionist, republican, catholic, protestant, Muslim, homosexual or whatever their personal preferences are, to at the very least be capable of respecting the opinions of other communities no matter what their personal opinion is off them.
Gay marriage is not to everyone’s liking (not surprisingly more so on the unionist side), but it is bigotry to ignore that section of the communities aspirations and refuse to meet and discuss their concerns if political leaders are asked to do so.
Is nationalism the last remaining group who are considered so inferior that our wishes are not considered important enough to even be discussed or taken seriously by the political leadership of unionism?
The fact you claim to be an Irish republican and yet vociferously support thus unionist stance is not so much bigotry as idiocy.
“Is nationalism the last remaining group who are considered so inferior that our wishes are not considered important enough to even be discussed or taken seriously by the political leadership of unionism?”
Is unionism the last remaining group who are considered so inferior that our wishes are not considered important enough to even be discussed or taken seriously by the political leadership of nationalism?
“Is unionism the last remaining group who are considered so inferior that our wishes are not considered important enough to even be discussed or taken seriously by the political leadership of nationalism?”
I would love to hear more about the past experiences of people in the unionist community, more so the working class loyalists than the political class.
I think it would be great to here first hand commentary from people on the ground who lived through those times.
Even just yesterday I learned something new from Harry, that it was the Catholic community who requested the British army come over to defend them.
How bad must it have been for that to have happened?
That is not what I read in books and we should be documenting first hand experience from those who were there, on both sides.
I would love to see a museum where such memories can be experienced, not to glorify them, quite the opposite, to show how easy it can happen and the hurt and damage it causes society.
The unionist narrative is important to me, as are your opinions. I have said numerous times I would prefer an agreed settlement while unionism is at its strongest than when it is in a minority.
I hold no animosity for loyalism, but I find the political leadership of unionism and the orange order distasteful and to be using and abusing the most vulnerable in their own communities.
Once again MT, your lame attempt at parody is only making an ass of yourself.
“Even just yesterday I learned something new from Harry, that it was the Catholic community who requested the British army come over to defend them. How bad must it have been for that to have happened?”
But Harry was telling porkies. The Army wasn’t deployed at the request of the Catholic community.
jessica
The GFA does not impose any obligation on Unionists to in any way help the cause of a United Ireland (nor does it oblige turkeys to vote for Christmas).
When a referendum is finally called there will be plenty of discussion and debate. No-one will be prevented from putting their case.
In what way is this treating Nationalists as inferior?
You are talking about two opposing political viewpoints. They are entitled to oppose one another without being labelled bigots.
“The GFA does not impose any obligation on Unionists to in any way help the cause of a United Ireland (nor does it oblige turkeys to vote for Christmas)”
I have never once said it did gio.
I said it recognises the legitimacy of that aspiration which is held my a sizable section of our people.
I also have never said unionists should in any way help the cause of a United Ireland, I said the reasons for their refusal to sit down and discuss all options, such as putting forward how the union can offer more to our people through their connections in London and likewise putting it over to nationalists to do the same in Dublin is down to nothing more than bigotry and we are all the worse off because of it.
“You are talking about two opposing political viewpoints. They are entitled to oppose one another without being labelled bigots.”
I have never once said they would not or should not maintain their viewpoint in any discussions. I simply said the reason the wont even contemplate it only serves to prove my point that unionism is bigoted and is putting one sides views over what is best for the people they are supposed to serve.
So far you have given me nothing to suggest otherwise and even put words in my mouth that I have never said in an attempt to prove otherwise.
“I said the reasons for their refusal to sit down and discuss all options, such as putting forward how the union can offer more to our people through their connections in London and likewise putting it over to nationalists to do the same in Dublin is down to nothing more than bigotry and we are all the worse off because of it.”
This was all discussed at length in 1997-98 resulting in the GFA. Why on earth would anyone want to do it again now? And how does not wanting to do it make anyone a bigot. Nationalists don’t want to do it either so are they bigots?
“This was all discussed at length in 1997-98 resulting in the GFA. Why on earth would anyone want to do it again now? And how does not wanting to do it make anyone a bigot. Nationalists don’t want to do it either so are they bigots?”
Sure MT, why would our elected representatives who are paid a hefty purse out of public money want to do something stupid like discuss the best relationship we can have with other nations. I wont even mention brexit, or the border, or customs checks, or trade tariffs, or peace and stability, or improved relationships on this island, or reconciliation. Sure, who in this screwed up shithole of a country would be interested in those stupid things anyway.
Unionists fucking depress me.
ANY party on ANY side who is not interested in getting and maintaining the best deal for all of the people they supposedly represent is not fit for office anywhere on these islands.
“Sure MT, why would our elected representatives who are paid a hefty purse out of public money want to do something stupid like discuss the best relationship we can have with other nations. I wont even mention brexit, or the border, or customs checks, or trade tariffs, or peace and stability, or improved relationships on this island, or reconciliation.”
They’ve already done that and agreed the best relationships. Why do it again?
“What is at the lower end of this scale? No bigotry or a little bit of bigotry?”
As I have said, while unionism maintains the stance of our way or the highway, and refuses to engage with requests to debate on this topic from other sections of our community throughout this island including from our Taoiseach, then that is by definition bigotry and intolerance so you tell me, how can anyone support this stance including yourself if you are claiming to support this position and at the same time claim it is not bigotry?
They cant, hence the sliding scale is capped at the lower end until such time as this position changes.
“Does the same apply to Nationalists/Republicans?”
Absolutely
Anyone who refuses to debate with other sections of our community is a bigot pure and simple.
I have consigned to the dustbin several responses to this blog ( you know who you are) and put up at least one which perhaps I shouldn’t have (you know who you are too). Please – disagree with Jessica or anyone else, but do so on the basis of an expressed counter-argment, and I don’t mind a bit of label-pinning if it comes in the light of a preceding argument. But straight and unimaginative abuse? Don’t bother – it won’t go up. And if you think it has, draw my attention to it and I’ll happily look at it again. Let’s try to discuss in a civilized way.
The British Isles is one country? I thought that the UK was one state made up – at present _- of three and a bit countries. But anyway who decided on this UK? England did for her personal security. Who even decided to call it the British Isles? England did. Who decided to wipe out the languages and cultures of the countries that are not England. Who has draw their cannon fodder from Ireland, Wales and Scotland? England has. For whose benefit? England’s. Most welsh people have lost any desire to rebel. The scots are trying hard. And the majority in this country do not believe that england’s government, army or morals have any moral right to be in this country. If an intruder camps in your garden and defies any effort to get him out it doesn’t make his occupation moral or legal no matter how long he stays. So in this most westerly of the European Isles, we’ll bide our time.
Harry/jessica
http://Www.socialistworld.net
When the troops went in in 1969. You’ll not remember this,harry, as you were alone and palely loitering at the time. Hah!