“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” was how Shakespeare put it. He was intent on underlining that Hamlet’s mother Gertrude wasn’t the loving wife to his father that she claimed to be. In other words, the more you go on about something, the more suspect your claims become.
I mention all this because yesterday, Alex Kane wrote an article in the News Letter under the heading ‘Sinn Féin rhetoric ignores fact that Irish unity would kill off unionism”. The title makes the central assertion of his article: if unionists were to accept a united Ireland in whatever form and with whatever guarantees, they would cease to be unionists.
I like Alex as a person and I like him as a writer, and he’s gone to the heart of the matter with this one. You can’t be someone who embraces or even grudgingly accepts a united Ireland while at the same time remaining a unionist. The positions are mutually exclusive, which is why so much blood has been spilled over the decades.
But Alex doesn’t leave it with the headline assertion. How could he? The man’s got a column to fill or the News Letter won’t pay him. But even granted that hard financial fact, Alex still goes on for another nine hundred words roughly, explaining why it is that acceptance by unionist of a united Ireland would make them non-unionists. I’m sure he’d agree that it’s a totally logical statement and after making it, there’s really not much more to be said.
Except, that is, you’re not sure that stating the unionists-can’t-be-for-a-united-Ireland thesis may seem insufficient, because you still have fears that it might come about. Alex looks at the various documents that Sinn Féin have produced in recent days, talking about how unionists could maintain their British passports, could hand on that right/privilege to their children, that there might be weighted majorities necessary in the Dail to deal with topics affecting northern (ex-} unionists, and other special arrangements. Having looked at them, he dismisses them. The hard fact is that being unionist cancels out being republican, and vice versa.
What Alex leaves out is that Sinn Féin have listed all these supports-for-unioists in their recent documents because they want to make transition to a united Ireland easier and more comfortable for unionists. Just as Brexit can be either hard or soft, so too moves to a united Ireland could be hard or soft. That’s what Sinn Féin are aiming for – a soft landing for unionists, who would be naturally uneasy about the fact that their worst nightmare has happened.
Alex also leaves out another fact and a question. The fact is that, were a majority of voters here to vote for a united Ireland (yes, Virginia, even if that majority is no more than 50% + 1), then by the Good Friday Agreement Britain (and the twenty-six counties) would be duty bound to facilitate that change.
That’s the fact Alex left out. The question he left out is, what would unionists do when faced with the democratic (albeit unpleasant ) outcome of an international treaty?
He is also ignoring that the british government have already accepted northern Ireland will leave the UK and therefore the monarchy have also accepted giving up this part of their realm. The GFA is like the sword of Damocles and will remain dangling over the heads of unionism until it is implemented.
Unionism had 50 years of pretty much unfettered control, it wasn’t enough and in their starting a conflict to physically remove Catholics to preserve the domination in their little state with full support of the british state, they have made it impossible for british rule to remain.
If anything killed unionism, it was unionism, and yes it has to go.
I agree completely that Sinn Fein are trying to make it as easy on them as possible.
This may not be possible for them when nationalism is in the majority though. It is what they do when they were in ascendency that I will assess them on and unionism have hardly been reciprocative to date.
I do think the horrible realisation is beginning to dawn on them though.
Perhaps Dublin will be next for the wake up call.
Great story jude
Grma, James. Your taste remains peerless…
Well correct me if I’m mistaken please but aren’t there still certain groupings of unionists that are maintaining weaponry? Will they emulate their forebears and threaten mayhem if they , once again , are confronted with a majority of the islands residents wishing to join up?
don’t mention who started the conflict beachguy.
Unionism is nuanced, and the majority of the nuances are preparing to be absolutely abhorred when their mainstream unionist anti reconciliation rhetoric, refusal to acknowledge their past, underhandedly clinging on to their paramilitaries and support for the on-going british state cover up of the truth and when their graduated responses actually graduates to violence.
When I lived in Japan, I did not become Japanese, when I lived in France, I did not become French, when I lived in England, I did not become English. My point is that after 30 years abroad, remained Irish and brought that with me. My point is that Unionists can retain their beliefs, culture and way of life in a UI. What they cannot retain in the long run is the undemocratic state that is “Northern Ireland”.
Exactly Bridget, they can even remain northern Irish.
Even in language, ulster Irish is different from Munster Irish.
We could even scrap the pathetic Westminster puppets style Dail and create a new and innovate style of democracy based on devolved super councils each with a degree of autonomy.
Unionism is simply the support for the preservation of division within Ireland and is no longer limited to 6 counties.
The central point that Alex Kane is either ignoring, or ignorant of, is that the United Kingdom as he knows it is under the greatest peril in its history.
If, or perhaps more likely when, Scotland walks off into the sunset, the ”United” Kingdom will be no more. A rump of a Little Britain, or Wangland, will have no affection for the notion of pumping in 10 Billion per year into the mediaeval furies and absurdities of Narnia.
In such circumstances, the delusion of Narnia ”Britishness”, an affinity to a construct that no longer exists, would be reminiscent of those White Supremacists that still hanker after Rhodesia. It is pure delusion.
The ultimate irony, of course, is that it was Unionists that urged the ripping apart of the United Kingdom, and it was ”Republicans” that tried to cement it together.
Happy Brexit.
Ironic indeed Kevin.
I have no particular affinity whatsoever with britain, but I appreciate that it would not be in our peoples best interest to side with the EU in a trade dispute over corporate greed against them.
My enemy’s enemy is not always my friend.
I am also not convinced that they are pumping 10 Billion per year to run a separate administration here, I would like to see facts on this, but suspect we have at least halved that already. The savings from unification and single administration would more than cover the deficit and the benefits would boost both parts of this island.
I would also fully support a united Ireland playing a part in helping to rebuild a new union between these islands, a union of equals, more respectful of people and based on the recognised independence of each of the 4 nations that exist within them.
The time is coming to let Northern Ireland go and to build a new Ireland that can deliver for all of its people.
Grma, James. Your taste remains peerless…
Kevin, I truly wish I could share your optimism about Scotland walking away from the union. I’ll be direct: I don’t think it’ll happen except it becomes blindingly obvious that Scots are being excluded from a fruitful membership of the EU and a disastrous attachment to the UK. It could come to both but somehow I doubt it.
Some unionists will threaten violence when faced with the democratic (albeit unpleasant ) outcome of an international treaty…
I think this threat is overstated, most people with mortgages to pay and kids to put out to school will start looking for the least worst democratic option.
“I think this threat is overstated, most people with mortgages to pay and kids to put out to school will start looking for the least worst democratic option.”
You could have said the same in the late 60s Cal, but there were plenty of people with mortgages to pay and kids to put out to school that still managed to start a terrible bloody conflict.
MI5 is still up to its eyes in this and managing many in these groups on both sides so the fact that they are anticipating this and making preparations to be able to crush it, shows they have learned nothing from what happened in the 70s in my eyes.
A very important observation,Jude. Unionism and nationalism are mutually exclusive. This is the reason that we must live civilly with the pro British element in the six counties but is not a reason to fawn or grovel.It is not a reason to support their police force or judiciary. The hope is that if the natives are shown how attractive the anachronistic world of the Saxe Coburg Gotha’s really is, then over time we will resign ourselves to Finchleydom. Examine two scenarios. A pro British person enters an establishment or into a contract and the address presented to them is Derry. The political and civil machine goes into gear to demand that the ‘proper’ address is used etc. But the pro British society here never stops to say well ‘whatever’.let it go. Or if a virtually unknown flag is removed from somewhere on one of Her Majesty’s Buildings, they threaten to bring society down. On the other hand, go into one of HM’s buildings or processes and point out that your name – as Gaeilge – has been misspelt and try to raise the misdemeanour. All hell will fall on you. You are a fenian, a rebel, a communist, a dole-ite, a never do well and out to subvert the state. Until the British presence and the power that the settlers hold is removed, there will never be peace here. Unless the natives can be seduced by ‘the British way of life’.
” You are a fenian, a rebel, a communist, a dole-ite, a never do well and out to subvert the state.” I could live with the fenian, dole-it, etc. But not the charge of’rebel’. I speak from experience…
You are too sensitive,Jude. Man up and know your place.
“It is not a reason to support their police force or judiciary.”
Fiosrach, in my view our people need a police force and a judiciary and we should assimilate what we have and make it acceptable and eventually our own, peacefully and respectfully. Sometimes brains can overcome brawn you know.
Now according to you, we should refuse to support their police force or judiciary as they simply support partition.
So, can I ask you fiosrach, what is difference between supporting the southern gardai and their judiciary and the northern PSNI and their judiciary?
Why should dissident ire since you believe it to be worthy of your support, be directed at one pro partitionist group and not the other?
To me it looks like a handy excuse to maintain control in our communities and build a criminal empire than any real thought out or logical aspiration. It is doomed to fail and at a cost to everyone.
But there is only so long that this can be tolerated.
When you start trampling over the toes that are making unification a reality, ignorance will be no excuse.
Merely pointing out to you – again – Jessica, that a nationalist person cannot be a unionist policeman. A catholic can be anything he wants in Ireland. And less of the ‘we’ and the ‘our’ and ‘our people’. Who do you think you’re pontificating for? Settle down. Make a list of thirty things you support and thirty things you don’t. Then try not to get the two lists mixed up. If you can’t distinguish between non Sinn Féin republicans and ‘dissidents’ as you call them, go back to your history book. MT has a better handle on the situation than you.
When I say our people fiosrach, I mean all Irish people who would put what is best for all of the people of Ireland first.
If anyone thinks anything that I say does not meet that criteria, please point it out.
As for your claim that a nationalist person cannot be a unionist policeman, or woman I assume.
Who are you pontificating for as this is a far more extreme position?
Are there any nationalists in the Gardaí do you think?
They certainly uphold partition. Are nationalists excluded there also?
And even if they are unionist, does this mean they cannot provide policing services for nationalists or should be discriminated against?
Any wonder unionists don’t trust us?
I have never said a catholic could not be anything he wants in Ireland.
It is you who is saying a nationalist cannot join our police services which I disagree with.
MT would be on a similar wavelength to yourself all right.
You still haven’t grasped ‘mutually exclusive’. I’ll simplify it. If your car is black it isn’t white. Forget about wish washy grey or dirty cars or half and halfs. You can pretend to serve in a British police force and you can pretend to be a nationalist but two horses you cannot ride. Don’t forget your lists.
In that case, I simply don’t and wont ever subscribe to your view of an Irish nationalist.
And you are no better than the worst elements within unionism.
“Any wonder unionists don’t trust us?”
Jessica, you know as well as I do that some Unionists don’t trust “us” (Catholics, Republicans, etc) because they were fed a diet of bigotry and sectarianism. If your trying to justify that mistrust then you may as well justify discrimination, gerrymandering, etc while your at it.
“And you are no better than the worst elements within unionism”
To say fiosrach is no better than the worst elements of unionism really is going overboard Jessica. I don’t agree with fio when he says you cant be a nationalist and a police man here, you obviously can. This is Old Republican thinking that literally goes back to the time when partition was created. What does it achieve except for excluding every police officer from ever being a supporter of Irish Unity and playing into the hands of Unionism? Why stop there? is it then impossible for a fire fighter to be republican? he works for the state. Is it impossible for a civil servant to be a republican? etc. That way of thinking leads to dead ends and doesn’t bring us any further towards Irish Unity, in fact it makes it less likely. That’s why the likes of Sinn Fein dropped this hard line thinking. It doesn’t bring any benefits.
The police here needs big reforms. The RUC elements in it need removed immediately. But can you be a police officer and be a nationalist? Of course you can.
More importantly, it should be 50/50 nationalist/unionist.
Perhaps we should bring back 50/50 but more in line with the Stormont declarations of unionist, nationalist or none/other
“The police here needs big reforms. The RUC elements in it need removed immediately. But can you be a police officer and be a nationalist? Of course you can.”
I agree with you on both counts Ryan.
To dictate who can or cannot join the police or who can or cannot be a nationalist is not something I am prepared to swallow from fiosrach or anyone.
The problem is as you rightly say, nationalists not only, not being allowed to join but to succeed within the organisation that is the problem we need to address.
‘Any wonder unionists don’t trust us’:
Well, don’t worry about that.
They don’t even trust each other!
Jessica, my opinion is that the first duty of a PS KNI recruit is the defence of the state. How can a nationalist honestly do this?
As far as I am aware fiosrach, no PSNI officer is asked to swear an oath of allegiance to the queen, or even use the term northern Ireland. They will accept an oath to protect the people of the 6 counties just fine as was confirmed publically by Matt Bagott who said even the north of Ireland would be suffice.
If we are confident that unity is in our best interests and I am, then the PSNI is a temporary force and its transition will continue until it eventually merges with the gardai into a new police service of Ireland. Would it therefore not be in our best interests to do what we can to expedite this transition and at the same time help our young people get good jobs to boot.
There is no difference whatsoever between the gardai and the psni, they are simply Irish police services serving each of the two jurisdictions of Ireland that resulted from partition.
I never mentioned oaths or Northern Ireland in my post. Do you think it is not their duty to defend the state – especially against republicans? And I agree there are two police forces – one Irish giving its allegiance to the Irish state and one giving its allegiance to the British state.
You claimed in an previous post on this subject, that you were against nationalists joining the PSNI over an oath of allegiance to the queen.
Now it is an oath of allegiance to a british state or to make it first priority, all of which are the opposite of Matt Bagotts public claims.
Here is the oath taken by PSNI officers.
I hereby do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all individuals and their traditions and beliefs; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof according to law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_oath#Northern_Ireland
I’m sure you will agree, Jessica , that the nature of the state and its response to a civil rights campaign went more than some way to explaining the outbreak of violence.
I think it was Newton Emerson that said the only thing in history comparable to unionists joining a United Ireland was when some Unionists found themselves on the wrong end of a newly partitioned Ireland. They got on with it, one way or another. I believe most Unionist will as well although there will be a lot of rhetoric and some disorder from a minority.
The 75% Protestant PSNI could pose a problem were there to be any civil disorder.
“The 75% Protestant PSNI could pose a problem were there to be any civil disorder.”
That will be a litmus test Cal, and why I claimed the PSNI should be the last line of defence for nationalist communities.
It was the RUC who were the militant wing that started the conflict, it will be up to the PSNI to rectify and prevent history repeating itself.
I do not believe this will be easy, but it is the road we have to travel.
Cal the PSNI isn’t 75% Protestant it’s 67% Protestant and 31% Catholic.
https://www.psni.police.uk/inside-psni/Statistics/workforce-composition-statistics/
They have made efforts to increase that percentage but are having difficulty finding the recruits.
Probably due to historical stigma and the dissident threat.
I agree 100% Scott
People like fiosrach certainly aren’t helping
“They have made efforts to increase that percentage but are having difficulty finding the recruits.
Probably due to historical stigma and the dissident threat”
According to Brian Feeney, a respected and long time journalist/commentator, that isn’t true Scott.
He said applications from Catholics are more likely to be turned down by the PSNI.
As we already know 50/50 recruitment has been scrapped. The Chief Constable says he would like that to be re-introduced but for some strange reason it hasn’t.
Also, we know that RUC elements, who were paid to leave the police service here for good, were allowed to go back into the PSNI. That clearly goes against making the PSNI a cross community police service for all.
A lot of work needs to be done to make the PSNI a truly cross community police service. There is no excuse, after 14 years in existence the PSNI of today should reflect our society and have a 50/50 population of Catholic and Protestants.
“They have made efforts to increase that percentage but are having difficulty finding the recruits”
A recruitment campaign in the 26 counties might get better results
Excellent suggestion
a recruitment campaign in the 26 counties might get better results.
couldnt see that working out to well,would their accents be accepted living in loyalist areas when the bloods boiling at the 12th.
I don’t think the PSNI would be too welcome in loyalist areas at the moment but making them welcome in nationalist areas would have my full support.
Might even help get rid of a few undesirables and criminal types that are poisoning our communities and need to be clamed down on hard.
i dont think the psni would be too welcome in loyalist areas……were do they go then,will they commute from dundalk.lol
Who is your first line of defence,Jessica, while you conduct your litmus test on the heavily armed unionist constabulary?
reach for the internet..that will scare them.
If you are saying we who live in nationalist areas should support armed paramilitary groups such as the anti IRA instead of the PSNI, then I would say go to hell.
If you are sincere in your assessment that the PSNI cannot be trusted and will once again turn their guns on us as the RUC did, I will say this.
Another Cork man who I hold in high esteem, Terence MacSwiney not only gave the ultimate sacrifice to lend iron to his words, but they are words I have never forgotten.
“It is not those who can inflict the most, but those that can suffer the most who will conquer.”
It is not suffering at the hands of thugs and criminals in our own communities that I think of when I reflect on such courage and conviction.
who you want to support is up to you it doesnt make people who dont support the peelers dissidents,read up on mr,swanzy next time your reading about the cork man..he slipped into live in lisburn under the new name changed police after murdering mcsweeneys friend.sadly for him things didnt go to plan..
I would agree with you there billy, no it doesn’t.
But then I never said that it did.
Dissidents are anti IRA republicans who refuse to accept the conflict is over and wish to maintain paramilitary style control over their communities through the threat and use of violence for self serving purposes including financial gain through criminality.
Is that clear enough?
My biggest problem with the PSNI is they are not doing enough to get rid of these dissident thugs and any other drug dealers, criminals and death riders from our society.
The reason I believe is because they are riddled with state agents and off bounds to the PSNI.
How else do you suggest we rid ourselves from these criminals as described above?
certainly cal they would cause problems if the barricades were to go up again.their not accepted in any nationalist areas,can you see the xbranch man and his men leaving their homes in loyalist areas never to return to defend catholic areas.the dreamers who fell for the oul british lies and are promoting the same lies should be ashamed.
Well, if the PSNI were representative of the population, and 50% were from catholic areas, sort of goes against your theory?
Not to mention the reality that the real problems within many communities is the criminality conducted by your para-military buddies who are unlikely to have enough support on those communities to build a hamster cage never mind a barricade
no buddies of mine are involved in crime. your throwing insults and getting away with it here when you are losing the debate speaks for itself.your support for british armed forces in ireland is seen by many as trampling on the dead generations your rantings wont change that.
50% catholic in a British unionist police force still leaves it 100% unionist. Anyway, turncoat Catholics have a history of this disgraceful conduct since the English arrived here. If they want a ‘good job’ in a British police force, let them go to Britain.
“50% catholic in a British unionist police force still leaves it 100% unionist.”
No it doesn’t.
Jessica make no mistake about it, the upsurge in crime especially crime linked to drugs has the blessing of those who control the PSNI. A blind man can see that if you introduce drugs into communities you’ll soon take the revolutionary sting out of them communities. Just like the wide held belief that the British state were comfortable with an ‘acceptable level of violence’ during the troubles, common sense tells you that same state would welcome an ‘acceptable level of drugs’ as well.
The black communities in the US were destroyed thanks to the CIA flooding their communities with cocaine etc. Rather than fighting for their rights they soon ended up fighting each other……for the spoils of drugs. A dumbing down if you like. Drugs can numb the mind in more ways than one, and the great and the good know that perfectly.
If I was a director of mi5/special branch etc I would definitely encourage the influx of drugs into areas that traditionally offered resistance to the state. No1 they’ll end up fighting with each other and even kill one another, which in the states eyes, would be a bonus and no2 other people within the community would have to turn to a police force they traditionally didn’t like for ‘help and protection’. Job done.
In my home town, and I can only speak for my home town, I can tell you people regularly associated with SF turn a blind eye or pretend they don’t know when friends,relatives and others affiliated to SF are caught out promoting the drugs business. Problem is the other clowns who claim they are republicans are up to their necks in it too.
If only the Brits had introduced and encouraged the widespread use of drugs 100 yrs ago in Ireland………Connolly and Pearse would probably have never bothered the arses storming the GPO!
“Jessica make no mistake about it, the upsurge in crime especially crime linked to drugs has the blessing of those who control the PSNI.”
What upsurge in crime?
I would agree with you WT that the PSNI are both selective and ineffective in their response to crime.
A lot of the criminality is being undertaken by paid state agents on both sides that are off bounds to the PSNI.
They not only get regular updates and information, are able to influence and manipulate events in both communities to suit their propaganda needs but in the event of any return to violence they can then step in and crush it giving the appearance of being the impartial and law biding referee as well as getting the victory they never had over the IRA.
You have to ask yourself, what have nationalists got to fear from nationalists in the PSNI?
I can however see what the criminal gangs in nationalist areas would have to fear.
I think tolerance of these people is running out and it is time they have to go.
There is absolutely no reason the parties at Stormont could not legislate if necessary to empower the housing associations or executive to separate people from living in close proximity with other people that are engaging in criminal behaviour. Split them up and their true courage will come out and run down their trouser legs.
Without the crime gangs, MI5 would be unable to operate and we could finally get rid of them.
only upsurge i can see mt is immigrants bringing hard drugs in,they now make up 10% of the prison population in the north and thats only the ones got caught.meanwhile the sf/dup coalition in stormont today voted together to block an inquiry into how the millions of pounds of public money is making its way into the hands of gangsters.y
How come, MT?
“How come, MT?”
Because you don’t have to be unionist to be a police officer.
Great point Jude but, it goes somewhat deeper I am afraid.
Once re-unification occurs, and our nation is once again, political unionism shall of course remain, albeit boats shall still run to Scotland so they’re welcome to go home, what shall remain is what was set up for them, Dail Dun Domhail, what Jessica hints at, the ‘super council which shall permit the unionist majority to have influence continuing in the six, formerly occupied, Ulster counties.
For my own part I dislike counties as they’re Norman creations but, what are you going to do?
We shall then have to send elected representatives to Dail Eireann, sorry Jessica, but that’s better than the present arrangement, we shall, I suspect be forced to permit send settler types some representatives to the less UK upper chamber but the key thing is, what’s left of the settler type will be Irish only, slan na seachanachi.
However, it is within the nature of the settler to create trouble for the indigenous population, their influence in Dail Eireann will be great but, their lost dominance will be of greater influence in how they conduct themselves in Ireland.
I can recall when Alex was the star of the ascending young republican element here, unknowing that, as Vincent would say, he represented the people whom had discrimination down to a science.
Alex himself, by his own admission, is a republican unionist, I am not aware he objected to the youth wing of the republican party placing him alongside a one time fuel smuggler at a one time event in QUB, the same fuel smuggler, then a key in that Party’s spin building.
Now, I myself am no great fan of Sinn Fein lies but, neither am I keen on OUP lies, nor any other political party, kicking Sinn Fein with a thug is not my cup of tae.
As always I respect your opinion Mark and am always ready to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than myself.
Dail Eireann is fine with me, it could just do with a delousing in my opinion.
‘and am always ready to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than myself.’
Please!
“albeit boats shall still run to Scotland so they’re welcome to go home’
“we shall, I suspect be forced to permit send settler types some representatives”
“what’s left of the settler type will be Irish only, slan na seachanachi.”
“However, it is within the nature of the settler to create trouble for the indigenous population”
Jude, are racist sentiments like this acceptable on your blog?
I take it you are a ‘seachanachi ‘, MT?
MT, what ‘religion’ has Protestantism’ become?
MT, what ‘race’ has Protestantism’ become?
MT
To see comments about settlers going home is just nasty and idiotic.
This in regard to a community that has been here for centuries with all the mixing of the two communities that entails.
I can only assume it is designed to get a reaction.
It is just trolling, and poor trolling at that.
Pure racism, GB, and not a peep out of Jude.
Yet he chasisted me for asking for evidence to back up spurious statistics (The result of which query was that they were proven to be false)
MT, supra!
Frankly Gio, not in the least ‘trolling’, rather, as previously pointed to MT, he has a constitutional right, under Irish or UK law to freely express his opinion, as does yourself.
Of course, the corollary of this is, I too have the right to freely express mine opinion and, I have long been of opinion if, upon the entry into force of re-unification, elements of, hitherto unionism fell they cannot afford allegiance to Ireland then, ‘go east young man, and woman’.
I cannot see how this is racist since, unionism is virtually exclusivly a Protestant tradition and, as,above, just what ‘race’ is protestantism?
“I cannot see how this is racist since, unionism is virtually exclusivly a Protestant tradition and, as,above, just what ‘race’ is protestantism?”
Actually Mark recent opinion polling seems to indicate that one third of Catholics are Unionists.
As for your whole settlers go home nonsense, I’ll think you’ll find this is our home.
Pretty poor stuff mate.
Being a Unionist or Nationalist may be mutually exclusive terms but I see no reason why they shouldn’t be interchangeable positions.
I see no reason why someone’s Political preference should be a fixed position by there religion or cultural identity and that political position can freely change by the determination of a individual on what is best for him/her and there society.
There is evidence in opinion polling, 2011 census and recent election results that show that support for a UI is falling.
PS. I have to add though that there is no definite indicator for support for a UI but all the indicators are pointing one direction which does show a trend.
Jessica is it not the case that come unification there will be no PSNI as there will be no Northern Ireland.
That is correct Joe, but it is time to stop dreaming about it and start actually implementing it.
Tell me, how do you see the transition from A to B happening?
The PSNI no matter what we feel about them or their historic links to the RUC are a highly skilled police force.
They are also Irish people who live and work in Ireland.
In the event of unification, would it be more likely that the two forces would merge keeping all of our skilled people doing the job they were trained to, or that the PSNI officers will all be sacked as in the world according to fiosrach, unionists probably wont be allowed to be police officers in the new Ireland?
Now, if you believe as I do, that it will be a merger, would it not help make this transition smoother if there were more nationalists in the PSNI?
What we need to do is encourage more nationalists to join and ensure any remaining anti nationalist discrimination is uprooted.
Unification will not happen before we are politically mature enough to make tough decisions.
Scott, one must ask, in respect of BBC/BT opinion polls, and I worked my way through QUB with a polling company, whom commissioned the surveys, how were questions posed and answers elicited and where did polling happen, as before, do the same poll in the Bogside, Carrickmore or Crossmaglen, then publish the result.
I suspect it will be closer to how Nationalism really feels.
I’vea lot of time for Alex too and he always writes with reason.He probably didn’t get around to saying everything that was on his mind…or get into the subtle nuances.
Well…..going on form …if you were a racing man and it was a horse-race, unionists facing burnout would probably initially attempt to do what has worked every time in the past.They’d chuck democracy out the window and tell the majority to go to hell.Then they’d have great big rallies and various offshoot ne’er do wells would get pumped up full of the same old bullshit that worked in the past….find all those guns that hadn’d been handed in. The main unionist parties would back them up and in halls and churches across the land it would be argued that violence was perfectly okay again…because it suits and well ..isn’t God on our side?.
People would start being burnt out of their houses and the odd nationalist punter would be murdered …well ….just because it is all his fault….innit? It would start to happen all over again , because that is always the background threat and then another oppositional group would get fired up to defend its own enclaves and start fighting back .Who would the police support then? Would the British send their army back in to act as” peacekeepers”? Would Irish-A merica get involved ? Would anyone care this next time around?
Alternatively maybe “unionism” would become the new stateof play across Ireland and it would be embraced as the natural state in a new united land….a true and proper union of all Irish people …all “new Irish unionists” with a new agenda and now without the fear of being subsumed by a Roman Catholic ethos that is no longer there anymore …. as it had been one hundred years ago.Ther’d be be no cry of “Home Rule is Rome rule” now that it is no longer likely to be the case.
Can you see this working in the internet age, it would be on social media all over the world captured on a million phones.
And then where is the ever present firebrand there has always been?
Paisley has no successor. The line has ended. We are in the end game of the unionist decline and there is nothing they can do to stop it.
Aw Jessica. There mightn’t be a new Paisley but they’d find somebody to focus on …or better still, some opportunist would pop up.There’s always some mouthy git like Paisley. He doesn’t even need to be too bright either…just as long as he says the things that people want to hear. As for it being all over the internet …what difference would that make? They “know” exactly who the UDA is and they “know” what is going on in places like Carrickfergus …they “know” all about “Nama” too and they”know” who and what Dee Stitt represents, but what difference has any of that knowledge made?
The difference is they cannot cover it up or control it harry.
The Internet has changed everything.
If it wasn’t for Paisley, that one man, I don’t believe there would have been a conflict here.
Unionism has always had a catalyst to inspire the violence. Without one, they are like a neutered dog.
“The Internet has changed everything”
It has indeed Jessica. The conflict here would’ve been very different (or maybe would never have happened) if the internet had existed in the 1950’s or 1960’s.
“If it wasn’t for Paisley, that one man, I don’t believe there would have been a conflict here”
Even Trimble said that. He said if blame had to be put on a single individual for the cause of the troubles then that individual would be Ian Paisley Snr. He was a religious fundamentalist and lunatic who was pulling a lot of strings behind the scenes. So many Catholics were murdered due to his rants and so many gullible young protestants had their lives destroyed by going to prison, getting involved in paramilitaries, etc. Indeed one Unionist paramilitary said, whilst in prison, “I regret ever listening to that man (Paisley)”. The Unionist paramilitary said that more due to the fact Paisley abandoned him, not because he murdered Catholic civilians.
“Unionism has always had a catalyst to inspire the violence. Without one, they are like a neutered dog”
There will be people within Unionism that fancy themselves to be the Successor to Paisley. Fleg protestor Jamie Bryson was one. Peace was a disaster in many ways for political Unionism. As UUP Leader James Molyneaux said about the IRA ceasefire: “This is the worse thing that could’ve happened”. He later went on to oppose the Good Friday Agreement.
That,Harry, is the real sword of Damocles. Some democrats will get a rude awakening.
Just saying, fiosrach……
I know
After absorbing the gist of Alex Kane’s take on the Sinn Fein economic analysis, Esteemed Blogmeister, one felt obliged to look elsewhere for an alternative Yune viewpoint. Such as might be located, say, south of the Blacks Sow’s Dyke.
Having reached an age where to be sage is all the rage one is naturally enough constantly on the alert for an opportunity to be even-handed and fair-minded, that sorta thingy. Naturally one felt drawn to an alternative to the News Letter, to its polar opposite, barely, that Boot-camp to Stamp-out Bigotry, The Unionist Times.
Specifically, to the Man who is Thursday, aka, Newton Emerson.
The original of the species, the metaphysical thriller by GK Chesterton, was first published in 1907 so next year is sure to be celebrated in the House of Tara – bigly. Make a note in your diary, faithful reader.
Briefly, the original novel featured an Edwardian chap name of Syme who is recruited by Scotland Yard to an anti-anarchist police corps. One of the cornerstones of Syme’s philosophy is that the most poetical creation of humankind is the, erm, timetable of the London Underground.
It would be facile to assert that this sounds remarkably like the,(gasp) Syme old Syme so one was not tempted to go there. Instead, one looked directly as the latest offering by Newton E. on The Unionist Times table, and which – mirabile dictu ! – focused on the same topic.
The title was full of promise:
-Walking into the trap of the Sinn Fein numbers game.
It was a promise which was fully realised in the conclusion (spoiler alert !!!):
-Like all martyrdom cults, Sinn Fein must send us all to paradise first. It is the final insult.
The only problem was the bit in-between; the mathematical meat one meets in the doorstopper of a sandwich, as it were. Paragraph after paragraph of number crunching – Wriggley’s chewing gum for the mind – which reminded one, as an aesthetic experience, of being confronted by the short list of, say, The Turner Prize 2016. Bigly.
THE TIMETABLE of the LONDON UNDERGROUND
Every Thursday to the truthiness of Newt
TUT treats us, in its house of ill-will repute
That King Billy whine
Is on the Picadilly Line
For loot he aims at the Shins his Chelsea boot.
“That’s the fact Alex left out. The question he left out is, what would unionists do when faced with the democratic (albeit unpleasant ) outcome of an international treaty?”
What could they do? They would have to accept it. It would happen no matter what. Can you imagine the reaction from republicans if a border poll showed a majority wanted a United Ireland and then both governments refused to implement it because of Unionism? Arlene Foster was asked on the Nolan TV show if she would accept a United Ireland if a majority voted for it and she replied: “Of course, I am a democrat”. UDA Leader Jackie McDonald (funny how certain people can be UDA Leaders but not get arrested despite it being illegal….) was asked in a public debate would he accept a United Ireland if a majority voted for it and he replied: “So be it”.
I read Chris Donnelly’s take on Sinn Fein’s documents. To be honest, much of SF’s proposals are fantasy. Unionists keeping British passports in an event of a United Ireland will happen anyway. But this talk of Unionism effectively having a veto in the Dail for certain issues is ridiculous. There is no way the people of the 26 counties will agree to handing 15% or less of the population of this island a veto in the Dail. The equivalent of this would be political Unionism promising nationalists in the North a veto over certain issues in Westminster if they agree to keep the Union. It’s impossible for SF to deliver and its simply not going to happen.
Another thing that I find ridiculous (and contradictory) is this talk of a “Federal Ireland”. There are republicans talking of basically keeping the Northern state but within an All Ireland. This contradicts one of the main reasons for uniting Ireland: having one administration on this island, saving billions in the process. Again, I doubt very much people in the South will want to spend billions a year just to keep a separate administration on this island. It doesn’t make political or economic sense. It will also do little to make Unionists feel comfortable in a United Ireland given they will be a minority in the North by then anyway. When the South can their independence, Unionists were invited to take part in the state, which they accepted. The same should be done in the event of a United Ireland.
I understand the main purpose of SF’s document is to show “small U” unionists that in the event of an United Ireland their concerns will be listened to and taken on board but much of the content is undeliverable.
PS: as Chris Donnelly points out: political Unionism have never produced similar documents to assure Irish Nationalists that their culture, concerns, identity, etc will be protected whilst part of the British Union. But I guess that would be going against political Unionisms anti-Irish agenda. Indeed they have always opposed even simple parity for Irish culture, identity, etc…..
Good old Jessica. The unionists say they are British but you say they are Irish. Who do I believe? Will you have the taig half batoning the Huns and the Hun half batoning the taigs or will it be an ecumenical batoning by the British PSKNI of the Irish? You’re talking like a ha’penny book,woman.
And why is it wrong to shoot policemen now and it was OK in the last century? What has changed? Oh yes, they’re accountable now. I see.
I am embarrassed and ashamed by your comment.
I’ll settle for an intelligent comment.
“And why is it wrong to shoot policemen now and it was OK in the last century? What has changed? Oh yes, they’re accountable now. I see.”
Shooting anyone is much harder than it sounds fiosrach, I don’t think I could do it unless it was absolutely necessarily, say in self defence, etc. But you cant deny the society we live in today is FAR different to the one in the likes of the 1960’s. The hatred shown by many RUC made it quite easy for republicans to shoot them, as one former republican POW said in a debate. It was also very easy for RUC to shoot Catholics.
I’m sure if you asked any active Republican volunteer, whether they lived in 1920 or 1960, if there was a viable alternative to violence would they have took it? I would say the vast majority or maybe all would say Yes. The truth is violence was inevitable then and it certainly was Britains fault.
The society we live in today is far from perfect but its very different, there’s still a lot of corruption from the British Government but violence shouldn’t be an option for any side. As US President John F Kennedy said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”. That was the case in 1916. That was the case in the 1960’s. I think in 2016 we’re in a far better place where peaceful CHANGE is possible but there’s also a part of me that thinks peaceful change may still be blocked, just like in 1916 and in the 1960’s but I hope for us all that’s not the case.
So those described as “dissident republicans” may well get their wish of the conflict returning if peaceful change doesn’t occur because its being immorally blocked. Our society is still very unstable. If reconciliation isn’t successful then we’re all in trouble, nationalist and unionist.
the hatred shown by many ruc,,,,,,but they havent went away,how many are patrolling about that have been involved in all sorts of crimes,firing plastic bullets at housewives,kids,ect,supplying weapons,covering up murders,the name change was cobbled together and sold as a pup.how can they have support when people dont know if the one that set their loved ones up are in the back of the jeep.
Well, at least now you have provided some insight to your thinking and a valid argument billy and I can respect that.
Simple one liners espousing hatred without substance just makes us all look bad.
More does need to be done to allow everyone in society to have respect from and to those we rely on and trust to police our communities.
speak for yourself and the minority your in with your..we rely on and trust..
more needs to be done..weve been hearing that for years.
espousing hatred without substance..facts are different from hatred.
Don’t get me wrong,Ryan. I’m not saying it was right to shoot policemen at any time. I just wondered what had changed from the 90s until the Provos got into power. What was the gain to them? How did their members be heroes before and then dirt birds when they did the same later?
You don’t think it was right to shoot combatants including the RUC during the conflict which they started?
Well I sure as hell do.
And they aren’t the same. The IRA that fought in the conflict have stood down.
Whatever paramilitaries that remain today, they sure as hell aren’t the IRA. In fact they are defying the last order given by the IRA and are therefore in my eyes are anti IRA.
Yes,but what changed? What quid pro quo was given to Adams etc to remove the police from the list of legitimate targets?
I believe that the IRA decision to end the conflict was made in the 80s.
It took almost 10 years to create the right circumstances.
Unionism did not want peace, the british wanted a victory.
If you are asking for a reason, I can recall that our communities were at breaking point and I don’t think we could have endured much more to be honest.
The british were throwing money, some sold out cheaper than others but there was heavy infiltration.
Possibly why they made it so difficult to accept a no win truce. It took heathrow being closed for a week to change their minds.
Britain agreed they would leave and the rest is history.
If you are asking what guarantees were given in return for the truce, I would say none.
It is my opinion many on the british side would like nothing more than for conflict to break out again.
Not so much the british army, but in the security forces and MI5.
They would love to see the british army back on our streets.
Is that really what you want and if so why?
“You don’t think it was right to shoot combatants including the RUC during the conflict which they started?
Well I sure as hell do.”
This comes from someone who claims killing is always wrong.
Always wrong unless it’s nationalist terrorista doing it, I see.
A confused, bitter and dangerous person.
I am not confused about it in the slightest.
Killing is always wrong and conflict is always wrong.
But it happens anyway.
When you are unfortunate enough to live through conflict, you have to make a choice.
If you decide to get involved, there is no going back, you do your duty and follow orders.
that’s how it works.
That is why I don’t believe in just wars.
On Sunday night ‘we’ had thousands of RUC men and on Monday morning ‘we’ had a brand new PSKNI. This is a miracle on a par with the loaves and fishes. I envy your faith and farsightedness,Jessica.
Now you are being childish.
The 50/50 recruitment policy was working, too well if anything.
There is a reason they stopped it and that there is a higher rejection of catholic/nationalist applications into the PSNI.
We will not break them by shooting them, just as they wont break us by shooting us.
If anything it has the opposite effect.
The problem is not the PSNI, it is MI5.
The solution is to fill their ranks and change them from within.
It is time to have faith in the next generation.
It is up to us to make sure they have to endure and see what we had to.
If our trust in the police is misplaced, then it wont be on us, and why do you think the next generation will be any less courageous than the one that went before?
Did the proportion of Catholic unionists in the PSKNI ever reach 50%? What was the highest it ever reached? I remember all this rubbish from the time the UDR was set up. People like you urged young nationalists to join up and hollow it out from the inside. What happened? Do you remember?
I understand your concerns fiosrach, I really do.
Keeping conflict alive is easy, building peace is hard.
If you are looking for a guarantee, there wont be any coming,
I look to my children, and they put us to shame. They wont ever see what I have seen, they wont ever do what I have done. And I am happy about that.
They will make their own choices, and I will support them no matter what.
Conflict did not only destroy the north, it destroyed all of Ireland.
It is only through peace that they will be able to restore our nations pride.
I’m welling up. Talk to you in 20 years time.
“I am not confused about it in the slightest.
Killing is always wrong and conflict is always wrong.”
Killing is ‘always wrong’, but it was right for nationalist terrorist to kill police officers. And you’re not confused?
My views on this would be no difference to what I believe to be that of Ghandi.
Killing is wrong yes, but not to fight back when your people are faced with oppressive force is cowardice and we have to make a choice.
The RUC were indiscriminately shooting or beating to death unarmed Catholics for simply seeking civil rights and pressing hard to get them.
Loyalist paramilitaries were encouraged to kill and bomb by their elected representatives and yes some who had not yet been elected yet but who’s support had been increasing and still had tremendous influence over unionism and then there were thousands of families being burnt and driven out of their homes..
You are going to have to face it MT, unionism started a conflict here and in conflict, people are expected to kill.
Doesnt make it any less wrong, probably why it can be so difficult to live with for many soldiers sent into conflict, but people are then faced with the choice as to whether or not it is the right thing to do.
I am sure there are many different views on whether soldiers killing in conflict in the right thing to do, not everyone would agree that it is.
I believe it was and accept that it is contradictory.
For people to keep fighting on after a truce has been agreed, if they want people to support this, they need to explain their reasons.
An agreed peace process to facilitate the transition taking too long is not sufficient in my eyes and is wrong, I would consider it to be equivalent to the RUC killings which helped start the conflict in the first place. I also believe many on the british side want this and are even encouraging it through planted state agents. Unionists would be off the hook for starting the troubles in the first place.
Whether we like it or not, we all have to give peace a chance and today, I believe that is the right thing to do
Anyone who disagrees will have to explain their reasoning.
But there is also no going back from this and britain has to go.
“Killing is wrong yes, but not to fight back when your people are faced with oppressive force is cowardice and we have to make a choice.”
But you just said it was always wrong. Now you’re saying it’s not always wrong.
“The RUC were indiscriminately shooting or beating to death unarmed Catholics for simply seeking civil rights and pressing hard to get them.”
How many Catholics were indiscriminately shot or beaten to death by how many policemen. And how does Policeman A killing sombody justify the murder of Policeman B, and then hundreds more policemen?
“Loyalist paramilitaries were encouraged to kill and bomb by their elected representatives and yes some who had not yet been elected yet but who’s support had been increasing and still had tremendous influence over unionism and then there were thousands of families being burnt and driven out of their homes..”
What elected representatives encouraged loyalists to kill, and how does that justify murdering policemen?
The RUC I remember were not police, they were armed thugs full of venom and hatred given the ok to act however they wanted against my community.
“The RUC I remember were not police, they were armed thugs full of venom and hatred given the ok to act however they wanted against my community”
They were police.
Now answer the questions.
How many Catholics were indiscriminately shot or beaten to death by how many policemen. And how does Policeman A killing sombody justify the murder of Policeman B, and then hundreds more policemen?
Which elected representatives encouraged loyalists to kill, and how does that justify murdering policemen?
Well, the unionist police along with other unionist thugs tried to remove Catholics out of the state and gradually lost control of the place with the rioting and unrest their actions sparked off leading to the british army having to be sent over to restore order.
This period of unprovoked and sustained unionist aggression led to the start of the conflict known as the troubles.
At this stage there was no physical force republicanism, it was unprovoked bigotry and intolerance of a civil rights campaign and ignoring the UVF, the RUC spearheaded the campaign and in 1969 they murdered 8 unarmed Catholics and wounded more than 133.
They worked hand in hand with loyalists in attacking nationalist areas. Strange act for a police force don’t you think?
Anyway, this led to the conflict which was 100% totally started by unionism.
I think the statistics verify my view that the RUC were not only a combatant force in the conflict but they were central to starting it and therefore as far as i am concerned this totally justifies them being targeted. I consider them as casualties of the war they started and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process#1960.E2.80.931969
In April 1969, the RUC entered the home of Samuel Devenny and beat him along with his 2 daughters,one of whom was recovering from surgery and causing the death of Mr Devenny.
On 13 July 1969, RUC officers beat Francis McCloskey, a Catholic civilian (aged 67) causing the death of Mr McCloskey.
Between 12 and 14 August RUC officers, backed by loyalists, entered the nationalist Bogside in armoured cars and tried to suppress the riot by using CS gas, water cannon and eventually firearms. The almost continuous rioting lasted for two days.
Between 14 and 17 August 1969, in response to events in Derry, Irish nationalists held protests throughout Northern Ireland. Some of these became violent. In Belfast, loyalists responded by attacking nationalist districts. Rioting also erupted in Newry, Armagh, Crossmaglen, Dungannon, Coalisland and Dungiven. Six Catholics and two Protestants were shot dead and at least 133 were treated for gunshot wounds. Scores of houses and businesses were burnt out, most of them owned by Catholics. Thousands of families, mostly Catholics, were forced to flee their homes and refugee camps were set up in the Republic.
By your logic, then, you would support a terrorist campaign by blacks in the US, murdering tens of thousands of police officers, because of the assaults and killings of black people by police there (far worse than what happened jn NI). Is that right? By your logic it would be right to murder, say, a traffic cop because one of his colleagues killed someone in a town sixty mles away. Yes?
And you still haven’t states who the elected representatives were who encouraged people to attack civil rights marches. Is that because you were telling porkies?
Blacks in the US would have been perfectly justified in taking up arms to defend their communities yes, absolutely.
There are not many peoples in this world who could have suffered what they endured and maintained their positive Christian values and pursued equality with such dignity and determination. I have every respect for them for doing so, but I would have just as much respect if the black panther movement had been able to take a more offensive stance than it did.
Ian Paisley was the ring leader in encouraging people to attack civil rights marches, he may have failed to get elected and only succeeding a few months after, but are you seriously calling me a liar over being a few months out on the dates of when it would be ok to use the term elected?
Seriously?
“Blacks in the US would have been perfectly justified in taking up arms to defend their communities yes, absolutely.”
Would have? I’m talking about now. Would you support a black terrorist campaign in the UDA today, murdering tens of thousands of police officers across the country?
“Ian Paisley was the ring leader in encouraging people to attack civil rights marches, he may have failed to get elected and only succeeding a few months after, but are you seriously calling me a liar over being a few months out on the dates of when it would be ok to use the term elected?”
So you’re now admitting that no elected representatives called for civil rights marches to be attacked. It took three attempts to elicit that admission. It is concerning that you so readily peddle untruths.
MT, I think you are just desperately trying your best to find some way to defend the actions of the RUC, to make them out to have been an impartial police force, that did not work hand in hand with loyalist groups to attack unarmed Catholics.
You are failing miserably because the facts don’t back that up. The RUC murdered Catholics indiscriminately and shot and wounded over 133 over the space of a few days.
Now that you mention blacks not engaging in a similar conflict. I was under the impression that blacks suffered greater than us, but I would not be sure.
Was there ever over 100 blacks shot by police in the US over such a short period?
It seems to me that the RUC and unionist aggression was far greater over those early years and conflict here was inevitable because of it.
Do you know what annoys me most about unionism. Its refusal to accept the facts that it started the conflict here, that it was the cause of conflict in Ireland, that its leadership still today refuse to compromise or accept truths they dislike as it makes them look bad.
Why cant you just admit the truth, that unionism started the conflict here and were the original terrorists.
You tell him,Jessica. And don’t forget approximately 20% of them were Catholics encouraged to join by the letsgetalongerists in the nationalist community. Are you ready, groundhogs.