What is Ulster Unionism?
Basically it is the opposition of Ireland having independence from being governed by Westminster by a section of the Irish people who were based mainly in the Province of Ulster.
Within this opposition there were and still are a range of deeply divided groupings, which make unifying unionism into a single cohesive voice so immensely difficult. Historically, these divisions were over political affiliation (Conservative or Liberal), by social class (landlord and tenant, middle and working class,) and by religious denomination (Church of Ireland, Presbyterian or Methodist).
The objective of Ulster unionism was to preserve the union between Britain and Ireland. Its leaders therefore consistently aimed to create a strong, united, disciplined movement in the province whose purpose was to convince the British government that Ireland should not be granted self-government.
It was mainly due to a deep-rooted and shared fear of Home Rule that these difficulties had largely been overcome by 1905.
When the first Home Rule Bill was introduced at Westminster in 1886 Ulster unionists were ill-prepared and their organisation was rudimentary. As a consequence of the tensions which the issue generated, sectarian riots erupted in Belfast in which 32 people died. In 1893, when the second Home Rule Bill was being debated, the unionist leaders were better prepared; they encouraged the formation of Unionist Clubs and a central council was elected to coordinate opposition across the province. But after the House of Lords had rejected the measure and the danger appeared to have passed, these initiatives lapsed and the divisions between those who supported the union re-surfaced over the years which followed.
In 1904, however, a number of southern Irish landlords suggested that local government powers in Ireland should be increased in order to improve the quality of its administration. A number of the younger northern unionist leaders were alarmed, regarding this proposal as ‘home rule by instalments’. They urged that a conference be organized to place the party on a ‘war footing’, and reform its organization so that it would be capable of ‘continuous political action’ and in a position ‘generally to advance and defend the interests of Ulster unionism’. As a consequence of their pressure a conference was convened in December 1904, and it resulted in the creation of the Ulster Unionist Council (UUC) in 1905, in which the Orange Institution played a leading role. From that point the Orange Institution played a prominent part in unionist politics which had formal links with the Ulster Unionist Party until 2005.
The UUC was comprised of 200 delegates, drawn from all nine Ulster counties (they included Unionist MPs and peers, 100 representatives of local Unionist constituency branches and 50 from the Orange Order). These new structures mark the inauguration by the Ulster Unionist Party of a permanent organisation, separate from and independent of all existing Irish unionist political bodies, though it did of course co-operate with these as the need arose. The stated purpose of the UUC was to draw together all Unionist Party branches throughout Ulster, help bond Ulster Unionist MPs and their constituents, contribute to the debate over future policy and to provide greater opportunity for the opinion of the broader movement to be expressed. The UUC was to play a vital role in mobilising Ulster unionist resistance to the third Home Rule bill, 1912-14 – the movement’s greatest challenge up to then. The Ulster Unionist Council has remained a central feature of the party’s structure ever since.
While unionism has a myriad of views and opinions, since the turn of the century, it has through the Ulster Unionist Council organised its differences into a single voice which in times of need speaks collectively for unionism. It has also since its conception been prepared to use violence to ensure its aims are met and it was unionism which brought guns into Irish politics in the post-Home Rule era through the formation of the UVF.
The divisions within the unionist family remain as deep today as they ever did, while the deep-rooted and shared fear of home rule has intensified since partition leading to now known to be unfounded fears of an IRA resurgence in the 60s that led to unionist aggression and the start of a bloody conflict which unionism has yet to acknowledge.
I refuse to accept the claims that unionism does not have a collective voice, as it was though collective voices that it formed the Ulster Unionist Council, the UVF in 1912 and stands shoulder-to-shoulder together when it suits.
I would say in fact there is evidence that the diversities within unionism are in fact unified by the deep rooted fear of Home Rule which has resulted in a deep-rooted hatred of Irish nationalism which in turn has led to a deep rooted hatred of unionism.
When we hear the term unionist, we think of Gregory Campbell, Jim Allister, and basically the most vocal of the elected leaders of unionism.
It is a fact that to many Irish nationalists throughout Ireland and the planet, ulster unionism is seen as displaying sectarian and bigoted views.
Based on my life experience and the behaviour of the unionist representatives, I believe credibility to the charge that unionism to be sectarian and bigoted.
Does this mean I am attacking every individual and calling them a sectarian bigot? All I can say is that it was not my intention to insult any individual, but that it is the perception instilled in me by a great many unionist representatives over a long period.
If individuals do not like this, then they are not going to change my perception by attacking me for the views that their own unionist representatives have instilled in me.
There is a fundamental difference here. Has England any right to govern any part of Ireland?
Am I wrong to desire an independent and sovereign Ireland?
Are unionists wrong to oppose an independent and sovereign Ireland and to insist we remain governed instead by an English parliament?
” Has England any right to govern any part of Ireland?”
England doesn’t govern any part of Ireland.
“Are unionists wrong to oppose an independent and sovereign Ireland and to insist we remain governed instead by an English parliament?”
We aren’t governed by an English parliament. There hasn’t been an English parliament since 1707.
Now , now MT . There you
go again.
Nitpicking. Trolling.
For those of us lacking in your knowledge can you explain your replies?
Or must we scratch our heads and
ponder the bases of your assertions?
Is it the word “English?
That’s my guess.
And is that all you can disagree with?
Can you help us out?
Technically you are right MT,but the fact remains that ‘British’ is something the English invented to make cannon fodder out of the Celtic nations. I suggest that you go over to what you probably call the ‘Mainland’ and try and say that you’re British not Irish.
In answer Jessica, Irish, how many unionists did not support the Irish rugby team yesterday?
It would be tragic Mark if we could not unite behind the team and get the rugby world cup to Ireland in 2023.
Jessica, cannot agree with that, in the main because, regardless of whom is playing in Croke on the first and third Sunday’s in Sept. that year, and it’s unlikely to be our county, they will have to give way to afford a,foreign sport the place to play on those day’s.
I would be utterly ashamed if the GAA refused to support the Rugby world cup coming to Ireland and allowing our county teams to change the dates for one year to accommodate what will be the biggest boost not only to the Irish economy but to the Irish spirits ever in our history.
Some things are bigger than all of us and this is one of them.
It is also irrelevant as there is zero chance the GAA would not accommodate it. The revenue they would make alone will make their head spin.
However, my focus was more on the uplift to our people, lets say we could all do with it.
“I would be utterly ashamed if the GAA refused to support the Rugby world cup coming to Ireland ”
I heard on BBC News the other day that the GAA is fully behind Ireland in their bid for the Rugby World Cup, one Irish Minister said “We couldn’t have bid for the RWC without the GAA”. Indeed its essential for our bid that Casement Park gets redeveloped and a new stadium is built but its a small minority of residents that are holding that back. The stadium designed was originally going to be nearly a 40,000 seat stadium but the residents want that knocked down to just 28,000 seats. Needless to say, they are not only stopping a great stadium for all the people of Belfast, a huge jobs boost for West Belfast (Who badly needs it) but they are endangering our bid for maybe the 3rd biggest sports event in the World (FIFA World Cup and Olympics being bigger).
I admire and support the GAA in their successful campaign in preserving Irish games but I think they should allow other sports to be played on their grounds. I’m not saying they should promote Soccer/Rugby but they should definitely allow others to use or rent their grounds and use their training facilities.
Indeed I think Irish Soccer and Irish Rugby should have their own versions of the GAA. Organisations specifically set up to nurture Irish Soccer/Rugby, especially at Youth Level. We have seen the massive success of Irish Rugby in recent years and its important we keep those standards up. Irish soccer on the other hand is still limping along, especially the NI team. Its not unrealistic to say the Republic of Ireland team can be of the same standard as, say, Croatia, Italy, the Netherlands, etc. Its all about constantly investing in the Irish youth, better coaches and facilities at Senior Level and a better mentality. For example, there’s ROI U16 youths who are training at major clubs like Manchester United, Manchester City, Italian giants Inter Milan, Celtic, etc.
If we had one Irish soccer team like we do in Rugby then things would be a lot better and easier.
“However, my focus was more on the uplift to our people, lets say we could all do with it”
100% agree Jessica. Sporting success is extremely important for a nation/peoples mentality. In fact, some would describe Sports more as another form of politics, and I mean that in a worldwide sense, not specifically here like the politics in the North.
For example, there was a national crisis in Brazil in the 2014 World Cup when Brazil got beat by Germany 7-1 and knocked out of their own World Cup. It was made worse when the Netherlands beat Brazil 3-0 to knock Brazil into 4th place.
When Lionel Messi, in my opinion the best soccer player in the World, announced his early retirement from the Argentina Team earlier this year, there was a national crisis in Argentina, the Argentine President even appealed to Messi to reconsider. There was huge parades and outpourings of grief at Messi’s retirement. In the end Messi reconsidered and is back in the Argentina team.
And, of course, when Roy Keane was sent home from Saipan in 2002 for exposing the Irish National teams disgraceful preparations for the World Cup, there was a national outcry in Ireland. Keane was one of the best players in the World at the time (Real Madrid and Juventus both offered him a fortune to join them). Irish media even noted that the Keane episode received more public attention than the Irish General Election that year, even Irish politicians speaking out about it. It even made national news in Britain.
So Yes, Sport is extremely important and its time Ireland spruced up because we’re not living up to our potential.
It would be fantastic if we could bring the world cup to Ireland Ryan.
It would do more to unite the whole of this island than any referendum or politician could ever achieve.
The GAA is doing my plenty to support the rugby World Cup bid.
They are providing 8 out of the 12 stadia involved.
on your has england any right to govern any part of ireland…you must think they have when you fully support the right of their police force to enforce english laws in ireland.
Unfortunately billy I am a realist first, and while I would like to see an end of all english political interference in Ireland, I also accept that our people need a police force in the mean time and the PSNI are it.
I fully 100% support all aspects of the PSNI that are accountable to our elected representatives and I would like to see a continuation of its transition so its membership becomes more reflective of the population, i.e. when there is a catholic majority here, I would like to see a catholic majority in the PSNI. It will make the future transition into an all island police force much easier.
I would also like to see them disarmed and all weapons gradually removed from our streets including policing.
So tell us who you would go to if you needed a policing service billy?
realist first…like to see an end of all english political interference in ireland..
like to see a continuation of its transition..
like to see a catholic majority in the psni…
like to see them disarmed…
plenty of likes but not very realistic is it.
I believe it is very realistic billy, a hell of a lot more than the DUP being willing coalition partners with Sinn Fein was not so long ago.
Obviously not a reality you would support, so once again, who would you go to if you needed a policing service billy?
why are you trying and failing to deflect from your 100%support for a british police force on irish streets and all the oppression cover ups ect they bring with them.i dont have need or time for them but then again its not me being the hypocrite.
By that logic billy, you would agree with MT that northern Ireland is british, whereas I would see it as Irish.
I will say it again, I would have no issue contacting them and would welcome their support. If they did act in appropriately as you seem to fear, then I would simply report it to Sinn Fein who would I would hope hold them to account through policing boards.
I am just trying to see where you are coming from.
I think it is good that you have not needed any police assistance, but am still interested in what you would do if you or someone close to you needed police assistance.
Would you refuse to accept the help of the PSNI because in your eyes they are a british police force?
Are you afraid to answer my question billy?
your question was answered and that includes not accepting help as you call it,now lets try and get back to your 100%support for the ruc/psni without more deflections,by giving your 100% support you therefore accept their policy in ireland,it then follows you support all the draconian laws they uphold.are you sure your not an irish unionist.
“are you sure your not an irish unionist”
our Jessica, an Irish Unionist billy?? I’m sure the Unionists on this blog laughed out loud when they read that line lol
I understand both your points of view. Both have good points and both are entitled to your opinions. When it comes to the PSNI they are a slippery bunch, there is definitely elements of the RUC still in there that shouldn’t be there.
If the PSNI are suppose to be a truly cross community police force then they shouldn’t have RUC men/women in there and their make up should reflect the society we live in, that means having a lot more Catholic officers.
If this change isn’t allowed to happen then the PSNI really are just the same old RUC under a different name. If they do make these changes and are genuine about being a neutral, cross community police force then they deserve our support or at the very least not getting our opposition.
I am not sure if Billy has a point of view beyond the emotions within a tiny close knit group with a very limited social sphere.
I would agree with you that not all elements of the old guard RUC have been removed. MI5 still have authority over certain elements of policing and control over the legal system has not been handed over and it is unlikely that it ever will be.
If northern Ireland was going to remain a province within the UK, there would be moves to complete the devolution of these powers.
If the UK were implementing an exit strategy however, where the outcome is a handover of northern Ireland into the rest of Ireland, then I could see why they would want to hold on to these powers until the last minute. They would keep up the complete infiltration of all groups linked to the remaining paramilitaries and be extremely cautious about keeping to a fine line of perception of support based on risk.
As a joint authority for the GFA, it would be unlikely that the southern establishment would not be aware of their long term plans if not the detail and would not want to rock the boat. Since Sinn Fein are highly likely to be in power in the south, it would be imprudent for british authorities based on the level of trade between the two states and the fact they will need short term support in EU exit negotiations not to be also having private dealings with them.
In terms of what is important to the british government, unionism is growing in irrelevance and Sinn Fein are moving into the circles of global state authority.
Gerry Adams has personally met Donald Trump and not been foolish enough to refer to him as a racist, unlike our current Taoiseach.
Anyway, Sinn Fein are moving beyond the petty politics of northern Ireland and they have to be allowed to step up and assume new and greater responsibilities.
People like billy have been so institutionalised by the status quo, they would not know what to do with a united Ireland if it dropped onto their lap.
maybe not a unionist ryan,but must have lived a sheltered childhood or isnt old enough to remember the ruc.a few posts down she actually suggests the ruc/psni will be the last line of defence supporting catholic areas if theres a final push by loyalists in the event of a united ireland.picture the ex branch man and his gang behind the barricades.lol
I actually do billy.
There are many memories and emotions scarred into my being that will never leave me until the day I die, a few of which I have shared on this site.
As a child we were constantly hassled by RUC with their army chaperones and I will never forget the raids and incursions into our estate, or the point blank shooting of plastic and rubber bullets into young people not much older than myself.
In fact I would say to you or anyone who claims things have not changed and changed utterly, that you have been fortunate enough to have not experienced the worst first hand and are simply repeating things you have heard or read from past events – and probably from your computer screen.
I was a child in the 70s so would not have experienced a lot about that period and certainly I missed the worst periods, but from what I did witness, the 80s were not so pleasant either.
Why don’t you tell us all about your own experiences billy?
But I will repeat once again because I am not sure that it is getting through to you, I do accept the PSNI, they are our police service and they have my full support against any republican criminal gangs who would bring those days back for my children, 100% support.
Is it sinking in yet?
re. “Are unionists wrong to oppose an independent and sovereign Ireland and to insist we remain governed instead by an English parliament?”
No, it is a legitimate political point of view that a majority of Irish people North and South voted to legitimise in 1998.
The challenge for Nats is to respect that view whilst working against – a difficult trick – which many of us come up short on. Equally themmuns come up short on their side of the equation.
Pointing out bigotry on the other side as Jude tried to do on Talkback before yer man did a runner is extremely difficult to achieve – but if themmuns or ussuns are pedalling bigotry it needs to be called.
I would not disagree that it is a legitimate political point of view Sammy, apartheid was once a legitimate point of view, but does that make it right?
The Irish people North and South did not vote for the same thing, so there is no all Ireland agreement on the GFA, it was in the north however supported by a majority of nationalists
who desperately wanted an end to the conflict and It was rejected by a majority of unionists who have yet to honour the spirit of that agreement and we wait to see whether they will honour the legitimacy of the agreement should it ever be tested.
Can I ask you Sammy, if it legitimises the opposition of an independent and sovereign Ireland, then why would a majority of ulster unionists reject it?
It would hardly instil much confidence that they have any intention of honouring it?
I would also disagree that nationalism has any difficulty whatsoever in respecting the unionist right to oppose an independent and sovereign Ireland.
The difficulty for nationalism I believe is with tolerating the insults and abuse from their elected representatives which heighten mistrust. It is the difficulty in watching our elected representatives bend over backwards to reach out and attempt reconciliation, only to have it thrown back in their faces time and time again.
It is the difficulty in hearing how the Irish language has no greater relevance in northern Ireland than any other EU language. In the constant intransigence when it comes to flags and marching… you get the drift. And yes, we are guilty of winding each other up.
But I insist that nationalism has no difficulty in respecting their views to remain in the UK.
Many do however have issues when unionists refuse to engage in debate over elements within the GFA that unionists dislike, such as the legitimacy of seeking a united Ireland.
Simply refusing to ever contemplate discussing it might be a perfectly legitimate means of fudging the agreement, but equally it doesn’t really make it the right thing to do.
As for pointing out bigotry, I don’t really have any difficulties pointing it out or accepting it when I am guilty myself.
Those that do struggle to point it out or prefer to cow down and tolerate it should really ask themselves why?
“No, it is a legitimate political point of view that a majority of Irish people North and South voted to legitimise in 1998”
Lets be honest Sammy the majority of people, especially in the South, voted in 1998 for anything that would stop the violence quickest. Even many Unionists who voted for the GFA said they didn’t agree with it but they knew it was the best way to stop violence.
Unionism is a legitimate political point of view but not in the sense that it justifies the creation of the northern state, this state is definitely illegitimate. The actions of Carson and his band of followers was definitely illegitimate and was basically terrorism, which was willingly pandered to by the British Government because it suited them to keep a foothold in this country. The UVF bringing the gun into Irish politics, was again, illegitimate.
“Pointing out bigotry on the other side as Jude tried to do on Talkback before yer man did a runner is extremely difficult to achieve ”
Its not really difficult at all, all it requires is to open your mouth or type on a keyboard and expose it. As John Lennon said: “Its easy if you try”. Unionists acknowledging and accepting their part in the conflict is part of the reconciliation process, there cant be reconciliation without that. If Unionists refuse to, then they will be the losers in the long run.
Exactly Ryan
The GFA is a peace accord and does not legitimise british rule in Ireland.
It does outline the terms in which britain will withdraw and in return demands that the status quo be respected until such time as there is a majority who wish to leave the UK, and that only peaceful means can be used.
In many ways it is a double fudge, british legitimacy can be inferred because the status quo has been accepted, and in return the legal ground work has been agreed between both states to accommodate the withdrawal from the UK.
What it does not do is outline any legitimacy or even desire for britain to govern in Ireland and as there is no facility once that majority has been reached for britain ever to return it is essentially a one way route to british withdrawal.
Sammy
This is the heart of the issue at least for so many debates here.
There is clearly an underlying assumption that unionism is inherently wrong and therefore anyone espousing unionism is a sectarian bigot, a nazi, supremacist or a westbrit.
The worst of these is the westbrit since it implies a traitor to mother Ireland.
I do not see unionism in that way and after so many centuries of living together, notions of unionists being colonists and ‘Ireland for the Irish’ (thankyou Mark) are just insulting..
The unionist position is accepted by most in Ireland,North and South as a legitimate aspiration, something confirmed in the GFA.
Unfortunately I don’t think jessica is able to accept that.
The insults and name calling will continue no doubt hampering debate and leading unionists to give up on commenting here. Possibly that is the idea.
“I do not see unionism in that way and after so many centuries of living together, notions of unionists being colonists and ‘Ireland for the Irish’ (thankyou Mark) are just insulting..”
Gio, the truth is we haven’t been living together for centuries. Forgive me but I think your being deliberately naïve. You know full well how Unionists behaved in those centuries even up to the most recent times, the Plantations, the Penal Laws, the creation of the Orange Order, Discrimination, Ethnic cleansing, etc. There’s no point pretending that Unionists were just people who came to an empty land and settled and wanted to live in peace. History has formed the society we live in today and I’m only being truthful, Unionism is mostly to blame for where we are today, any History book could tell you that.
“The unionist position is accepted by most in Ireland,North and South as a legitimate aspiration, something confirmed in the GFA”
The Unionist position was always accepted by the two Governments, the GFA mainly endorses the legitimacy of the Republican aspiration, it officially acknowledges that. Do most Unionists accept that is legitimate?…..
“The insults and name calling will continue no doubt hampering debate and leading unionists to give up on commenting here. Possibly that is the idea”
That Siege mentality again. No one is trying to make Unionists give up commenting, how could they? the only one who could possibly do that is Jude and he’s yet to block any Unionist for being Unionist. Jessica is very blunt in her views, I don’t agree with all her views but I think Gio that your more upset at the fact that Jessica (or anyone) would dare criticize Unionism. I have yet to see a single Unionist on this blog say that what Unionism did in the past was wrong. They either ignore it, excuse it or justify it. Criticism is not attack. Like David McNarry, some Unionists run away from it or behave as if they’re being “attacked”.
The irony is the people with the most to lose if we fail to achieve reconciliation is Unionism but they don’t seem to realize this.
Ryan
So are you accepting that it is legitimate today to take a unionist position.
If so could we do without the name calling and language such as ‘westbrit ‘?
How does it add to grown up debate?
Yes people can try to make others leave the comments section.It is called online bullying.. It is what jessica does.
I have no problem with criticism of unionism, why would I?
Criticism is not attack,as you say, but personal abuse, name calling, demonising are all forms of verbal attack. What need is there for any of it?
And I am pretty sure unionist commentators have frequently acknowledged the wrongs of the past.Try some of Am Ghobsmacht’s posts.
I suspect you must know this already.
“personal abuse, name calling, demonising are all forms of verbal attack.”
I have a far greater respect for IRA volunteers than I have for you gio. I regularly read insulting and demonising remarks about good people who’s families would be equally hurt to read about their loved ones as anyone else’s.
Why is it some peoples feelings matter to you but others don’t?
I admit it could be these attacks are simply getting my back up and making me more defensive, or it could be you are simply exaggerating because you don’t like what you are hearing. I am certainly not considered a bully by anyone who knows me.
The intermingling between Ireland and GB has been a process that has been happening since prehistoric times Ryan.
Many families who consider themselves “pure” Irish such as the McSorleys in Tyrone and the McCallion in Derry are in fact descendants of Scottish mercenaries known as Gallowglasses.
They came here and also took the land by force.
In fact the original Scots tribe which gave Scotland its name today was a Irish tribe from North east Ulster. The displaced/intermingled with the native Picts. The Irish invading Britain you might say
A interesting fact I recently learned also is that our current Queen Elizabeth is, through her mother a direct descendant of Hugh O’Neill the last Gaelic King of Ulster before he fled during the flight of the Earls.
History is often a funny and ironic old thing.
Scott…It’s good t for all of us to o be reminded that we are all of mongrel stock;every one of us a less -than- pure mixture of genetics stretching back through the centuries. I’ve written about this before but there is the mad, mental assumption rattling about that unionists and nationalists are two separate tribes of “Pure Celtic Irish” and ” Pure Ulster- Scots” , when in fact what we should really be talking about is two separate political ideologies. There is the assumption too that a person could not change his or her mind and possibly change his or her mind throughout a life and possibly vote for a different party. This idea of a kind of divided-race Ulsterman has been encouraged by the media, when in fact we should really be seen as a collection of individuals with very differing personalities and personal tics and preferences.
No, that is what is in your head Harry.
Many nations, peoples and even communities experience national pride and connections among similar minded people with common traits at a very real and tangible level.
It is human nature.
I find your use of the term mongrel and refreshing the bloodstock as cringable and as nothing more than a mad, mental assumption rattling about in your head that hopefully remains there.
Would be interested to know what your good wife feels about these terms. 🙂
Ha ha Jessica . My good wife has known me for some forty years now and she knows exactly how I think.You might choose to believe that we are not animals living on a planet but that’s not what I see when I look around me . I am a follower of the David Attenborough school of thought. You only have to look around the world at our fellow creatures to know that we humans are a race of blood and bone creatures with assorted genetic traits which have been interbred into us over the thousands of years since we left Africa as small groups.It’s there on our faces . Yes,”mongrels” in the truest meaning of the word…and not in a derogatory way ,unless of course you do not feel yourself to be an integral part of the very diverse and inter-bred animal- kingdom. A perfectly acceptable descriptive word with a Miiddle English or Germanic origin related to to the word “mingle” and the word “among”…..thus “mongrel”…not an assumption by any means.
I would not deny we are all part of the animal kingdom and can behave like animals at times.
But if we are talking DNA level accurate, David Attenboroughy, science type stuff, than no, I don’t think it is an accurate description at all.
At a genetic level we are nothing like any other animal on the planet, which are basically our food, or our foods food, or simply creatures we have not yet wiped out of existence and therefore must have some admirable qualities to escape our ire or they have developed sufficient protections to encourage us to keep out of their way.
Humans have virtually no genetic variations regardless if we crawled out of a swamp in Africa or live in an ivory tower with a gold plated lift.
Our differences in appearance are not attributes interbred from various species, but rather from the same species evolving to different environments over a diverse planet.
Mongrels refer to interbreeding different species to produce genetic differences and is usually deliberate to cross breed different traits that exist in different species.
In dogs for example, one species such as a Doberman are all a certain height making them identifiable, were a jack Russell is usually small grumpy wee shit, quite possibly called billy.
There is only one species of human, so we quite possibly did evolve from Adam and eve, though more likely from a primordial puddle rather than a nice garden.
don’t want to get you worried Harry, but God might just exist and may not have gone away you know. 🙂
Completely agree with you PK.
It perplexes me when I read things on here like because there is (most likely) going to be a Catholic majority in NI in the next few decades then it automatically means there will be a Nationalist majority. It’s as if people think that people’s preference to the constitutional question is tattooed on them at birth.
I look forward to the day when culture and religion is separated fully from politics and not used as weapons to beat each other with.
You think it will be a few decades before there is a catholic majority Scott?
I would be expecting it to be confirmed in the 2021 consensus.
Perhaps that explains unionisms lack of interest in reconciliation. Maybe the majority of unionists feel there is time enough to leave it to the next generation.
Personally, I would also be expecting the number of people who consider themselves practising catholic to go down and be on the decline and the number of people considering themselves Irish nationalists to keep increasing. Statistics damn statistics.
Hang on a minute Jessica .What are you talking about here ?At a genetic level we are exactly like every other creature on the planet.We share genes with everything on earth. It depends on whether or not specific genes are turned on or not.
So much so that we share the same DNA with every animal .Come to that we share the same DNA with plants too. We share over 98% of DNA with chimps , bonobas and gorillas.Humans and various monkeys share some 93% of DNA. Mice even share 90% of human DNA. Dogs share 84%.These are all mammals , but even birds share 65% of DNA with human beings, so we’re even connected to the humble chicken on a genetic level.They do say that the human being tastes just a bit like chicken but then again so does lobster!All of this means that if your wee doggie gets cancer , it can be treated much like your own good self with the same kind of techniques.
Mongrels are not the inter-breeding of separate species either. They are the inter-breeding of different branches of the same species…in the case of the dog, which is already a strain of the wolf ,which is why dogs can be interbred with other dogs and wolves …. and various cats can be interbred with other cats, but dogs can’t be interbred with cats.
It’s why we could have interbred with Denisovans and latterly certainly did breed with Neanderthals because Neanderthal DNA is still evident across the earth in a high percentage of humans…. but we could not interbreed with anything else in the animal kingdom because we simply cannot cross across species.We are the only human species left because we can see that all that’s left of the various other branche is part of their DNA , but we still know that other branches did exist in the past because we can look at their lost DNA. We have become the top predator of the world and we do enjoy hunting , farming , killing and eating other species , but that is not a unique trait either because every other creature on the planet does that too.They all prey on each other frmo the tiniest to the biggest. We simply learned to do it better and on an industrial, factory- scale, globally …just in the same way we also learned to upgrade our ideas of conflict and warfare. At bottom it’s just a conflation of the same old thing.The only difference is in the scale.
Well if you are going to go that far Harry, DNA is molecular and is made of the exact same molecules as everything else including air or even a rock.
That doesn’t mean we are a percentage rock, though some of us may appear to have rocks for brains (b***y).
I have to admit you are going a little too deep for my limited comprehension of it all and I had never heard of Denisovans, though I do find these things interesting. I used to enjoy the discovery channel before I decided to refuse to pay Sky for television or anything else. It is the one thing I do miss from it.
I was of the impression that humans were far more advanced than any other animals, and racism over appearance was skin deep as the genetic variance within all humans was so sleight.
You certainly know a lot more than I do about it all but I am still going to stubbornly dig my heels in and refuse to accept that we aren’t a lot more advanced than monkeys. 🙂
It may be sooner than a few decades Jessica but why on earth people seem to think Catholic automatically equals nationalist in the future NI I don’t know.
Many of the people you would label as Catholic or Protestant don’t even darken the door of a Chapel or a Church. Frankly non religious is probably eventually going to be the biggest bloc.
My point is what has demographics got to do with people’s political position on the constitutional question?
Also if it is (I don’t believe so BTW) that all prods are Unionists and all Catholics are nationalists, then that doesn’t say much for the people that we just neatly fit into are own pre cast sectarian moulds without actually thinking through the pros and cons of are position with our own minds.
If that is the case then we are all simply sheep.
I don’t believe that in the slightest actually Scott.
There are many Catholics who would usually put the church first and I wouldn’t trust these one bit to be honest.
Then there are Catholics who’s mothers would kill them if they changed but couldn’t give a toss about the catholic church, perhaps a distant interest when the pope visits in 2018 perhaps, but would rarely be seen in a chapel. I would be in this group.
In between there are various opinions on many things.
The only correlation would be the communities the vast majority of them grew up in would consider themselves Irish and have grown up with Irish ways and traditions.
While group 1 above would also consider themselves Irish, the constitutional issue wouldn’t matter a fig to most of them. If a referendum came along they would be listening, or more likely preaching to whoever will listen to them and then they will make their choice then.
That is why it surprises me that unionism remains so obtuse towards the Irish language and Irish identity. There are many catholic people that both are relevant to who would consider voting to remain in the UK.
To be fair, I do think if a referendum did come along they would struggle to go against the majority of the younger generations who would be so cock-a-hoop about the prospect they would start partying all over Ireland just for the craic of it (I am a bit past it all now but would have been right in the middle of it in my youth). Politics would be far down the ladder of importance to them – but once that ball starts rolling, it will make gay pride support pale in comparison. There will be carnivals, and you will have the oldies complaining about the young ones going daft etc… blah blah blah
Nationalism and unionism both need to end and they will. Which generation is ends in is the only unknown.
We aren’t nationalists Scott, we are just Irish people. It is the division between us that gives us the stigma of these labels.
Well , Jessica ..DNA is what we and all other things …parrots, sprouts or whatever have inherited from a parent before us which is a sort of plan or blueprint to build ourselves from the moment of conception.The proteins in your cells read the plans and it instructs them how to go about building all the specialised cells for the bits of your body.Each person’s DNA is completely individualand unique and it can be photographed and seen with powerful microscopes ,which is why it is handy for solving crimes.
It’s like this….. rocks don’t have DNA as such but they do have a similar thing called RNA which i believe we also have some of too …but it’s other factors such as gravity , pressure , temperature and atmosphere and so on that shapes rocks. At bottom we and the rocks are all made of the same kinds of stuff ….various minerals like iron, calcium 9good for bones)…. and so on.We’re all mostly carbon-based…. a bunch of dust if you like , held together with a lot of water and electricity added to make it all work. Take away the electricity in our bodies and the heart won’t beat and the brain won’t work either…Take away the eight pints of water (H20) and there’s not a whole lot left there…after a short period of time you’ll soon be left with dust….stardust even!..So that’s usually what happens when we die , when the electricity stops firing through the brain and everything stops working .The same DNA will soon degrade when its support system ceases to operate too which also happens when criminologists can’t use it anymore.Aren’t bodies fascinating?
Well Jessica I’m a little confused then.
If you accept that being a Protestant or Catholic doesn’t determine completely your stance on the constitutional question, then why do you basically say that Unionisms days are number after the 2021 census when you believe Protestants will be a minority?
I suppose I am simply using the same terminology the census uses to define the population in communities that are comfortable considering themselves Irish shall we say. According to the census, the catholic numbers are going up but the numbers attending catholic churches are falling and the numbers of catholic priests available are falling even faster. Lets say, the visit by the pope will be a desperately needed boost to the catholic church in Ireland.
Also bear in mind, when I use the term unionism, I refer to the unionism presented by the elected representatives who are the official voice of unionism in Ireland. I am well aware that not every individual holds the extreme views they express far too often, but I would not duck and dive behind such lame excuses if the elected representatives of my community behaved so badly in this post conflict peace process and I don’t take it well when unionists try it on here as you have probably noticed.
From what I can see in these census reports, this majority support within unionism is top heavy with the older generations of mostly protestant voters.
I could well be wrong, nothing should be taken for granted, but it looks to me as though the next election after 2018 will be the first to return Sinn Fein as the largest party and they will end of the role of first minister which will be a further symbol of moving towards equality between the two traditions on this island.
By 2021, those who are unable to let go of the anti Irish, anti catholic feelings and accept unionism as a minority will most likely leave to go live in GB.
Then, if Ireland gets the rugby world cup in 2023 which I hope it will, pro Irish feelings will be at their highest in our history ever.
All parts of this island will come together in a positive united atmosphere for the first time ever and the momentum towards unification will begin that will not be stopped and will not offer any threat or anything other than the hand of friendship towards the protestant / unionist community.
When I say unionisms days are numbered, I genuinely mean it will be a good thing for both our communities.
There will always be those on both sides who will refuse to accept reconciliation, refuse to accept the PSNI has changed, that these islands should work together or refuse to accept that the IRA have gone for good but will not be demonised in their own communities.
It is a time for tolerance and reconciliation, and from what I can see, unionism to date represents the very opposite of these traits.
In that regard, the days of intransigence, veto, discrimination, sectarian displays etc… are gradually coming to an end.
Well if we are kinda in agreement ( I think) that religion has no bearing on people’s preference to the constitutional question, then perhaps we should look somewhere else for a indicator of how people feel on the issue.
Maybe a better indicator would be the national identity question in the 2011 census? Would you agree?
These things are important because under the GFA there needs to be a clear indication that a border poll may be successful before the SOS is obliged to call one.
“The irony is the people with the most to lose if we fail to achieve reconciliation is Unionism but they don’t seem to realize this.”
Very true Ryan
I would be willing to accommodate unionism as much as possible if they would engage reasonably towards a proper peace settlement, however, it they push it to the wire and come to the table only when they become a minority, then we should take all we can and not consider their needs or wishes thereafter whatsoever.
They cant complain if we simply do what we learned from them after all.
What insults and name calling?
Apparently the unionist position is not even accepted by all unionists, yet you are here claiming that a majority of Ireland accept the unionist position.
Not sure what you are basing this on gio, the feelings I am getting among the people I meet are a frustration and losing of patience with unionism and even in the south they got their eyes opened recently with Arlene’s claim they were stealing jobs.
I think you are talking about opinions on planet gio and not opinions in Ireland.
jessica
My words were;
“The unionist position is accepted by most in Ireland,North and South as a legitimate aspiration, something confirmed in the GFA.”
Clearly I am not saying the majority of people support unionism.
That is the sort of dishonest argument I find most tiresome from you.
I never said you did say a majority of people support unionism gio.
You clearly said the “unionist position is accepted by most in Ireland, North and South”
To that I pointed out that the unionist position is not even accepted by all unionists.
I would imagine it is more incomprehensible to the majority of Ireland than accepted.
It is not me who is being dishonest here.
Why are you even talking like you understand the thinking in Ireland when you clearly don’t.
You are living in the cloud cuckoo land of planet gio.
Jessica, the majority of people in Ireland voted to accept the Unionist veto on a United Ireland – I think they understood that.
Whether a majority of Irish people find Unionism ‘more incomprehensible’ may or may be not be true – but they accept their position. At one level it is very simple – Unionists want one part of Ireland to remain British – and that is valid position and not an intrinsically sectarian position – which I dont think you are suggesting?
“the majority of people in Ireland voted to accept the Unionist veto on a United Ireland ”
First of all Sammy, there is no unionist veto on a united Ireland anywhere in the GFA.
If 50% + 1 of people in northern Ireland want unification it will happen even if every single unionist voted against it.
Failure to do so or any attempt to refuse to allow a referendum by the british state would be a direct breach of the terms and the spirit of the GFA.
“Unionists want one part of Ireland to remain British – and that is valid position and not an intrinsically sectarian position – which I dont think you are suggesting?”
Secondly, no part of Ireland is British. Britain is the other island.
All 32 counties of Ireland are Irish – partition did not change that.
6 counties remain within the UK and under british jurisdiction, just as the UK remains in the EU.
Wanting Ireland to be british is not in the least bit sectarian.
Forcing Irish people born and bred in Northern Ireland to accept they are no longer part of Ireland is very much sectarian and often is accompanied with bigotry.
jessica
“To that I pointed out that the unionist position is not even accepted by all unionists.”
Honestly I don’t know what you mean by this.
Do you understand that the majority have accepted that unionism is a legitimate political aspiration?
As for your respect I do not need it. Odd that you have more respect for men and women prepared to kill to get their way than for someone who favours peaceful means, but that is up to you.
“Do you understand that the majority have accepted that unionism is a legitimate political aspiration?”
Ok, lets explore this.
First of all, an aspiration is the hope or ambition of achieving something.
The GFA is that the status quo will remain until there is a majority who want to leave the UK to go into a united Ireland.
That gives us 2 logical aspirations, for nationalists to achieve a majority in favour of unification and for unionists to maintain a majority who prefer to remain within the UK.
I see the leadership of nationalism reaching out to unionists and while it can be hard to take the unionist hard line response throwing it back in their faces, at the same time, I would be more embarrassed if it were our lot behaving so badly.
Now to the legitimate political aspiration of unionism.
You do realise that a majority of unionism rejected the GFA and have constantly acted against it and not hidden their views that it will not be honoured and have made attempts to rewrite it in St Andrews for example.
The demographics suggest that the majority of unionists are in the later stages of life and there is a 54% and growing catholic majority living mainly in nationalist communities, yet there has been no attempt whatsoever by unionists to reach out to them
In fact, the southern government and its media has done more to persuade Catholics in the north against a united Ireland than any unionist.
So in terms of accepting unionism is a legitimate political aspiration, I am afraid my own fears are that it is not, but that when the prospect of the GFA being put into motion, unionism will once again resort to form having nothing any longer to lose and will unleash the UDA and UVF which they are clinging on to.
I also believe it will be the PSNI who will be the only defence nationalist communities will have and I sincerely hope the mistakes of the past will not repeat themselves and they will put down the unionist threat when it comes.
The demographics I don’t feel will sustain another conflict and it will be short but bloody, but in the end many unionists will choose of their own accord (not be forced) to leave to live in GB and in time we will pick up the pieces and the age old conflict will finally be at an end.
“Odd that you have more respect for men and women prepared to kill to get their way than for someone who favours peaceful means, but that is up to you.”
No different from the respect that many people have for their own who fought in conflicts brought to their land by guns from foreign shores.
What I do find is odd is that if they killed simply to get their way as you claim, why the same people did not kill before the conflict and the killing suddenly stopped and wound down when the conflict ended.
@ giordano bruno “anyone espousing unionism is a sectarian bigot, a nazi, supremacist or a westbrit.
The worst of these is the westbrit since it implies a traitor to mother Ireland”.
Actually I don’t think that is quite true – much worse than a “West brit” is a sectarian bigot or a nazi-type supremacist.
ben
Maybe so.
But I see a vehement anger towards those deemed to be westbrits or castle Catholics.Those who do not hate the brits sufficiently.
If unionism is a legitimate political aspiration why should it be a matter for such hatred now in 2016.
Is it ok for an Irish person to aspire to union with the UK either for the north or for the whole of Ireland? Should that be acceptable do you think?
“Is it ok for an Irish person to aspire to union with the UK either for the north or for the whole of Ireland? Should that be acceptable do you think?”
Of course it is gio.
I have no issue with any person holding a preference to Ireland being in the UK.
I even suggested that such an option should be included in a public debate over what is best for our people futures and that ALL options must be on the table.
It is you keep saying nationalists would refuse to allow such an option to be on the table at all, but you have failed to point out who has ever made such a refusal.
What I have an issue with, is unionism deliberately refusing to engage in an honest preferably public debate to determine what the best options for our children’s futures might be.
If that shows the UK option is better, would that not help such unionist aspirations if they were indeed genuine?
To simply prevent them by refusing to support any talks whatsoever, is to simply make things difficult and deny years of opportunities over unionist self interests. That does not sound like the actions of people who have a legitimate aspiration.
You supported this tactical position as being in unionist interests.
That is also fine, but can you not see that such a self centred approach is not the cunning plan to get the best for unionism, it is simply frustrating and annoying ordinary decent nationalists who genuinely want to seek reconciliation and the best futures for our people.
More importantly, it is not going to work out well for unionism or anyone.
It is not the sort of silly games we should be playing in a post conflict society. It is irresponsible and foolhardy.
@ giordano bruno “I see a vehement anger towards those deemed to be westbrits or castle Catholics”.
i think you have to separate out the West Brits from the Castle catholics. Maybe both are identifiers of shades of opinion in the middle/upper-middle classes but they are two very different types of people.
(I’m not talking about Fleggers and Loyalists here).
It seems to me that West Brits are now dwindling in number. They are people who genuinely do/did identify as British and live their lives as such – they are interested in UK politics, support the Armed forces because often family members served in them, look to London as their capital, send their kids to English or Scottish Universities (preferably the prestigious ones) etc. They are content to be British and part of the UK. To outsiders many may appear to be role playing but that is the only role they know.
Castle Catholics are on the other hand a sad group of people. They work hard to further their own careers and are well paid for supporting the status quo. They are never fully accepted by the West brits who use them and drop them as it suits them.They are distrusted by Nationalists/Republicans as they will be rolled out to “talk down” any initiative that threatens or even questions the status quo.
“Is it ok for an Irish person to aspire to union with the UK either for the north or for the whole of Ireland? Should that be acceptable do you think?”
People can aspire to anything they want, provided it’s legal of course.
Unionists aspiring for the whole of Ireland to return within the UK is, in my honest opinion, aspiring to a pipe-dream – given past history of the UK in Ireland . As HM herself said somethings should never have happened. So I don’t envisage people from the republic of ireland ever voting to return to the UK.
“An Irish person aspiring to union with the UK for the north” – that’s not an aspiration. Union with the UK is a reality for Northern Ireland. One can’t aspire to what is.
Obviously some people want to maintain the union – fine, that’s their point of view. They will probably actively campaign to put it forward.
How long their arguments will convince is another question.
“Obviously some people want to maintain the union – fine, that’s their point of view. They will probably actively campaign to put it forward.”
That is where gios views of unionist aspirations falls down in my eyes.
With a unionist minority only single digit years away, where is the reach out to catholics/nationalists to support the union?
If they were genuine about making northern Ireland work, why the animosity towards the republic that has clearly been reaching out to them?
It looks more to me like a backs to the wall and stay true to unionists same historic and sectarian ideals right to the bitter end than any legitimate aspirations.
Who in unionism even supports the GFA?
They cant even support the parades commission, setup by their own government that the are supposed to be loyal to.
Jessica, apartheid was never a legitimate point of view – as soon as everyone had a vote they voted against it. Irish people voted in favour of Unionist point of view being legitimate.
Whether something is ‘right’ or not is then a matter of legitimate political debate.
First of all Apartheid was put in place through legislation Sammy.
Second, whether something is right or not is what brought Apartheid down.
I don’t consider Apartheid as a legitimate point of view because I view it as politically unacceptable . Unionism is politically acceptable – and the GFA vote confirmed that as a majority of Irish people voted to accept it as such.
Apartheid was not a point of view, it had as much legitimacy as the gfa
Your opinion of it did not make it any less legitimate to the incumbent authorities at the time
Jessica, I’m defining someone as a Unionist if they want NI to remain British. Therefore it is a Unionist veto – a majority of people – who if they vote to remain in the UK are by definition Unionist – and therefore have a (Unionist) veto on a United Ireland. But that is really semantics – I’m not sure it matters what you want to call that veto.
You respect the Unionist position and the veto (whatever it is called) – as do I.
I respect that the status quo will remain until Northern Ireland democratically chooses to leave the UK as provisioned for within the GFA, yes.
Unionists who will remain here after we opt out, will remain british and be entitled to everything that every british citizen is entitled to, that has also been guaranteed within the GFA.
We need to be careful not to put vetoes where there are none, but I accept that it was just a communication thing rather than a disagreement of principle between us.
The Irish people???
And what about the elections held in the first quarter of the 20 th century when the vote of the majority was nullified by the threat of violence by a minority residing in the northeast bringing about the de facto statelet known as Norther Ireland?
I’ve always wondered, why wasn’t it called Northeastern Ireland?
And that is a good point that beachguy addresses to you Sammy.
If democracy in Ireland has been ignored by the british in the past, how do we know it will be honoured in the future?
The majority of unionists rejected the GFA, the largest political party denounces it, and have never acted in the spirit of the agreement instead vetoing everything they don’t like without a second thought that we are in a peace process.
Unionist supporters on this site such as gio, have supported the DUPs refusal to engage in any dialog if there is any hint the legitimate mechanisms outlined within the GFA may be mentioned at an official level.
The IRA have gone away, but the mainstream unionist groups UDA and UVF remain intact and very active according to the PSNI, yet the mainstream unionist parties refuse to put any pressure on removing these groups with the first minister even refusing to support the deputy first ministers calls for the head of the UDA to step aside from a body receiving millions of public funding while the PSNI have confirmed that the other group he controls engages in extortion and racketeering.
Calls for a border poll by the largest political party on this island i.e. Sinn Fein are ignored by the british state.
Hardly inspires confidence that the agreement will be respected.
It certainly does not make the GFA legitimacy of british rule in Ireland, it is an agreed peace treaty that will lead to british withdrawal on its own terms and will allow reconciliation to be implemented and peace to embed without the threat of violence.
The important thing now is to grow our economy and build in preparation for Ireland becoming a single all island economy.
Partitionist thinking should be opposed and its flaws highlighted. That is why unionists do not want any official talk of what is in our best interests, they know very well partition is not in our best interests.
If we had an honest and respectful debate and referendum the way Scotland did, then I would accept a clause that if leaving the UK was not the decision of the majority, no further referendum could take place for 50 years.
What does unionism have to fear from such an honest and respectful debate?
Everyone in NI has the right to aspire to whatever political arrangement they think best. As long as it is done peacefully and in good faith.
If a group of citizens don’t want to engage, discuss and decide what is best for everyone I suppose that’s their right.
Nobody should’ve forced into meeting with their neighbors.
So Jessca why don’t you stop banging your head against the wall and devote your prodigious energies and intellect to developing conditions that will make reunification the obvious choice to all.
If you had a quid for every word you’ve put on this blog you would be able to eradicate poverty in many places.
Lets put it this way. Unionism is an ideology distinct and different from apartheid in this important regard – when the people of South Africa voted – they voted to get rid of the structures that maintained apartheid and when the people of Ireland voted we voted to keep political structures that reflected Unionism.
Nats should in my opinion respect Unionism and Unionists as long as a majority of people in that part of Ireland wish to remain Unionists – difficult at times for Nats but that also works in reverse.
Apartheid was not an ideology Sammy, it was a system of government outlining how the state would be run, designed to discriminate against the majority so the minority could maintain total control over the state.
It has many similarities with what happened in Ireland.
It was not simply voted out, there was an armed struggle and a lot of human suffering had to be endured before pressure mounted around the world for it to end.
Nelson Mandela had a central part in gaining the worlds attention and his unselfish and selfless sacrifices helped lead to its collapse.
I will say again, I have no issue with unionists wishing to remain unionists – or even their preference to be part of the UK.
But as for respecting them, I will only respect those who deserve respect and in my opinion unionism in Ireland has done nothing to deserve any respect.
Gio, a small piece of housekeeping. I don’t think that a unionist can be a ‘west Brit.’ That is an epithet reserved for the Nationalist who is seen to bend the knee to what he sees as English superiors. A bit like the, ‘Castle Catholic.’ Unionists cannot by definition be seen as treacherous.
Freddie
Technically you are probably right, I suppose. Would a Catholic unionist not be seen to be treacherous by some? (Of course no such creature exists, but hypothetically speaking…?)
I see these terms used against media types and politicos who are seen to be unduly friendly towards our British enemy.
In 2016 we really don’t need these epithets to put down those we disagree with.
That is really the point I am trying to make.