Shooting from the Lip

I can't stand the Irish!!  There, I've said it.  I'll sit by my computer for the next couple of hours as the insults come in (with any luck).  I meant what I said - I don't like the Irish collectively as a race.  I see this as no different to British disdain for the French or the Germans.  The difference is the response I'll likely receive from Irishmen and women.  You see, they belong to a race with an unbridled capacity for hatred (mostly of we Brits), yet expect to be loved and lauded the world over by everybody else.  I see the Irish as an incredibly cosmetic race: all blarney and bullshit on the surface with the customary 'Ah, top of the mornin' to ya' and 'come on in an' hav' a pint a' Porter' plus all the other pimply Hibernian hyperbolic greetings, etc; whilst simultaneously in possession of a talent for being amazingly two-faced and backstabbing.  Just speaking from experience, folks.

However, I can get away with my opinions. After all, I help to run A Tangled Web with David and our visitors should, by now, know what to expect when they visit our numerous blogs.  If I was a journalist in a newspaper, however, echoing similar sentiments or even making intimations as to the characteristics of an entire race, I would expect to face serious questions form the managerial board.

How is it, then, that Jude Collins can get away with drawing a subtle equivalence between being British and dislikable?  He says of the wonderful Kelly Holmes: 'In the 2004 world of personalities, Kelly Holmes showed how someone who is British and likeable can move from a lifetime of also-rans to two Olympic gold medals without the word 'drugs' being so much as whispered. Eat your heart out, Michelle Smith.

Boris Johnson showed how someone who is British and likeable can put his foot in his mouth and then shoot himself in it, providing his loathing for those less fortunate than himself is strong enough.'

Why the need to lump the two adjectives in the same sentence?  I have no doubt some of the readers of the Irish News will consist of the 1 million or so citizens of Northern Ireland who are British - including the 84,000 people who were born in Great Britain but now reside in the province.  I wonder how they will feel in reading such sentiments? Will they create a brouhaha of seismic proportions like the whinging nationalists did when Trimble identified the Republic as 'mono-cultural and pathetic'?  Never.  They'll just be expected to take it on the chin from the various spokesmen of a community which becomes more imbibed with the tonic of anti-Britishness by the year - hence Collins' hubristic predictions of further Sinn Fein electoral rises.  If those rushing to denounce my anti-Irishness would pause for a moment to consider why I hold the opinions I do, I believe they would find the answer in the journalistic rants of ideologically nationalist aficionados together with the intensified admiration of fascistic murderers held by the same.

Comments

[siobal]

John
I don't just hate Sinn Fein supporters but all those Irish people who give them succor, including the 80 or 90% of people in the south who support a united Ireland of one sort or another. So, yes, maybe 10% of folks have sound democratic instincts.

[Young Irelander]

siobal,the Irish people can have sound democratic instincts as well as wanting a united Ireland.
I think you'll find the island was divided without the consent of the Irish people.

Where were the "sound democratic instincts" of the people who carved out a manipulated territory to suit a 66% unionist population?

[John]

Aspirations for an all-Ireland sovereign state is totally legitimate as long as its peaceful and legal.

Why you lump anyone who wants that with Sinn Fein/IRA...I have no idea!

I nominate siobal for the dumbest posts so far in 2005.

Maybe you should join the KKK while you're in the USA. You'll find that your views will be welcomed. Perhaps you're already a member? You can certainly stay out of Ireland.

Didn't unionists make up like 20% of the island population at the time of partition?

[siobal]

YI
Aspiring to a united Ireland is NOT legitimate. There is a diseased symbiotic relationship between the violent nationalism of the IRA/Sinn Fein and the constitutional nationalism that most people/political parties in S. Ireland now support. Both approaches cannot face the fact that there is a British nation on the island, one that has no interest in leaving the UK or being part of a united Ireland. Can't we just leave them alone and stop the constant harrassement, undermining (and killing) of these people?

John
Sorry, no plans to join the kkk or stay out of Ireland.

[Gerry O'Sullivan]

siobal

Aspiring to a united Ireland is NOT legitimate.

Beggin' yer pardon, but we'll aspire to whatever we want, thanks very much. However, if we tried to achieve our objectives by the illegal use of force, that would be illegitimate.

There is a diseased symbiotic relationship between the violent nationalism of the IRA/Sinn Fein and the constitutional nationalism that most people/political parties in S. Ireland now support.

How do you reach that conclusion? Article 3 of our constitution states:

"It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island." (my emphasis)

Both approaches cannot face the fact that there is a British nation on the island, one that has no interest in leaving the UK or being part of a united Ireland.

There is a significant British population living on this island, but to describe it as a nation is stretching it a bit, imo.

Can't we just leave them alone and stop the constant harrassement, undermining (and killing) of these people?

How are we harassing or undermining (not to mention killing) "these people"?

[Young Irelander]

There is a "diseased symbiotic relationship" between logic and reasoning and your brain.

Aspiring to a united Ireland IS legitimite.As a matter of fact Irish unity is referred to as an aspiration in the Irish constitution.

The British government have no problem with that.

[John]

Your argument is weaker than a wet paper bag siobal.

So any political party that seeks independence or a change should just 'let it go'?

The fact is...unionist are the minority on the island. Always have been and always will be. There is nothing wrong with seeking an all-Ireland state PEACEFULLY. What is wrong is hating an entire race of people.

The constant harassment and killing?? The only people doing that are the paramilitaries (loyalist terrorists leading the way over the last decade).

You make it sound like almost every citizen in the ROI is out to get people in NI. Are you doin ok siobal?

Everyone knows there is a British nation on the island. The fact is, they are the minority and were the minority in 1921. The key is that all of Ireland was part of the UK. Next thing you know, only part of Ireland is in the UK. Should we make concessions to the .0001% of people who want County Cork to be independent simply because there are people out there who want that?

Your argument is so weak I can barely start to wade through it.

There were plenty of people who had no desire to be part of the UK either but it happened. It was that way in 1801 and still is in 2005.
Thank goodness some people didn't listen to folks like you who just want to keep the status quo when things can be better.

I'm glad you aren't in the KKK siobal. I hope you improve your attitude and stop hating yourself or I don't know how much use you will be in Ireland.

[willowfield]

Young Ireland

I think you'll find the island was divided without the consent of the Irish people.

It had the consent of the unionist people in what became NI. It would have been wrong to steamroller over their rights just because there were more nationalists.

Where were the "sound democratic instincts" of the people who carved out a manipulated territory to suit a 66% unionist population?

They were the sound democratic instincts of those who supported the democratically-expressed self-determination of the unionist people.

Where were the sound democratic instincts of the people who sought to steamroller over that democratically-expressed self-determination and force their will on the unionist population?

siobal

Aspiring to a united Ireland IS legitimite.As a matter of fact Irish unity is referred to as an aspiration in the Irish [sic] constitution.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not it is legitimate, it does not follow that reference to such an aspiration in the Southern constitution makes it legitimate.

John

The fact is...unionist are the minority on the island.

So? Nationalists are the minority in the British Isles. Does that mean there should be a united British Isles? (Why are nationalists obsessed by geography?)

[willowfield]

The reference to siobal above should not be there. Apologies.

[John]

willowfield,

"It had the consent of the unionist people in what became NI. It would have been wrong to steamroller over their rights just because there were more nationalists."

What rights exactly?

This is a case of the wishes of the majority being IGNORED. Why should nationalists respect the wishes of the majority of NI if NI is such a sham?

In the world of some unionists, majority rule only applies when it is in their favour. Do you think NI would still exist if all nine counties of Ulster had remained in the UK? I'm not sure if the huge amount s of unionists in Counties Down and Antrim could've outnumbered those nationalists in Fermanagh, Tyrone, Cavan, Monaghan, Donegal...and let's not forget Armagh and Derry.

I would've preferred all of Ireland to have stayed in the UK. Partition has been a disaster. I think eventually an all-Ireland state would have resulted but back in the 1920s the British Empire was at its peak and full of ego. At least now it's a shadow of its former self...most of its colonies are gone...it's encountered resistance almost everywhere it has interfered.

Why have I heard 'NI should remain British because the majority want it that way' when we all know that wasn't the case on the whole island before partition? The concept of majority rule should always stand...not just SOME OF THE TIME....

Let's say 99% of the Welsh population wants out of the UK but the majority in the rest want it to stay...would it be wise to keep Wales in the UK?

Perhaps the majority of Britain's population do want NI to remain in the UK, but if at least 30% in NI want out...and a huge majority in the ROI want out...well..

I've also heard that plenty of people from Britain either don't care if NI leaves...or they want an all-Ireland state and be done with it.

[willowfield]

John

What rights exactly?

Well I suppose it is right (singular), i.e. their collective right to self-determination.

This is a case of the wishes of the majority being IGNORED.

What is?

Why should nationalists respect the wishes of the majority of NI if NI is such a sham?

I don't accept the premise of the question.

In the world of some unionists, majority rule only applies when it is in their favour.

Maybe so, but I am not one of those unionists.

Do you think NI would still exist if all nine counties of Ulster had remained in the UK?

I don't know. Not without repartition.

I'm not sure if the huge amount s of unionists in Counties Down and Antrim could've outnumbered those nationalists in Fermanagh, Tyrone, Cavan, Monaghan, Donegal...and let's not forget Armagh and Derry.

Probably not, which is why all "nine counties of Ulster" should not, and indeed were not, included within NI.

I would've preferred all of Ireland to have stayed in the UK.

So did unionists at the time, but they acknowledged the right of nationalists to self-determination and opted for the compromise of partition. Unfortunately, nationalists didn't reciprocate.

I think eventually an all-Ireland state would have resulted but back in the 1920s the British Empire was at its peak and full of ego. At least now it's a shadow of its former self...most of its colonies are gone...it's encountered resistance almost everywhere it has interfered.

The British Empire is irrelevant. The people of NI will determine their future without reference to a long-gone empire.

Why have I heard 'NI should remain British because the majority want it that way' when we all know that wasn't the case on the whole island before partition?

Because that is the accepted basis for politics in NI today.

The concept of majority rule should always stand...not just SOME OF THE TIME....

Is someone claiming otherwise?

Let's say 99% of the Welsh population wants out of the UK but the majority in the rest want it to stay...would it be wise to keep Wales in the UK?

In my view, Welsh people should be allowed to determine their own future. If they wish to leave the UK, that should be facilitated, regardless of what the rest of the UK thinks.

Perhaps the majority of Britain's population do want NI to remain in the UK, but if at least 30% in NI want out...and a huge majority in the ROI want out...well..

Well what?

I've also heard that plenty of people from Britain either don't care if NI leaves...or they want an all-Ireland state and be done with it.

Well, as with the Welsh, it's not up to "plenty of people from Britain": it's up to the people of NI and only them.

[Young Irelander]

willowfield,how often are you and I going to go throught this?Here we go again(sigh):

"It had the consent of the unionist people in what became NI.It would have been wrong to steamroller over their rights just because there were more nationalists."

So you feel it was fair to steamroller over the rights of unionists outside the 6 counties?What about the unionists in the three Ulster counties of Monaghan,Donegal and Cavan?
A territory should not be divided without the consent of the people of that territory.

"Where were the sound democratic instincts of the people who sought to steamroller over that democratically-expressed self-determination and force their will on the unionist people?"

There was no desire to "steamroller".Democracy was obeyed.The British government passed the Home Rule Bill in 1912.It was unionists who would not accept democracy and who formed a pramilitary group called the UVF to fight democracy.
Nationalists had obeyed democracy when the Tories made sure Home Rule would not come to pass and when they decided to play the "Orange card".
You shouldn't carve up territories when things don't go your way.This is akin to what some Yanukovych supporters in Ukraine are advocating.

"it does not follow that reference to such an aspiration in the Southern constitution makes it legitimate."

It does to me.A constitution sets out the "principles according to which a country is organized"(Oxford English Dictionary)therefore it is legitimate for the people to hold this aspiration and it is legitimate under international law.

A final question for you,wf.At 4:17 PM on January 1st you remark,"Since when did the Irish form a separate race" and also you say "I am Irish too".
Why then at 1:59 AM on January 2nd do you say and I quote,"They were the sound democratic instincts of those who supported the democratically-expressed self-determination of the unionist people"?

The Irish do not form a separate race in your eyes and you comment that you are Irish but you also seem to indicate that the unionists formed their own nation by commenting on the "self-determination" of the unionist people.
I find your position very perplexing.
You seem to be saying it's alright to feel Irish and British NOWADAYS but back in pre-partition Ireland this was not a position that was possible to have.

[willowfield]

Young Irelander

So you feel it was fair to steamroller over the rights of unionists outside the 6 counties? What about the unionists in the three Ulster counties of Monaghan,Donegal and Cavan?

Yes, it was fair. Since there was no territorial homogeneity of either nationalists or unionists, minorities on either side of the border was always going to be inevitable. Such is the case across the whole world.

A territory should not be divided without the consent of the people of that territory.

So if people in GB had refused to consent to the division of the British Isles, Irish nationalists should have accepted that?

Estonia should not have been removed from the Soviet Union without the consent of the people of the Soviet Union?

Pakistan should not have been created?

Belgian independence should not have been permitted?

You have strange views on self-determination.

There was no desire to "steamroller".

There was. Nationalists demanded a united Ireland against the wishes of the unionist majority in what became NI. They wished to steamroller Irish independence over an unwilling people.

Democracy was obeyed.The British government passed the Home Rule Bill in 1912.It was unionists who would not accept democracy and who formed a pramilitary group called the UVF to fight democracy.

On the contrary, unionists pursued democratic self-determination. The Home Rule Bill denied unionist self-determination which had been democratically-expressed consistently within what became NI.

You shouldn't carve up territories when things don't go your way.This is akin to what some Yanukovych supporters in Ukraine are advocating.

It should be up to the people residing in each territory what happens to them, and no-one else.

It does to me. A constitution sets out the "principles according to which a country is organized"(Oxford English Dictionary)therefore it is legitimate for the people to hold this aspiration and it is legitimate under international law.

So if the Southern constitution included a clause that, say, denied citizenship to Jews, you would consider that to be legitimate merely on the basis that it was in the constitution? What nonsense!

A final question for you,wf.At 4:17 PM on January 1st you remark,"Since when did the Irish form a separate race" and also you say "I am Irish too". Why then at 1:59 AM on January 2nd do you say and I quote,"They were the sound democratic instincts of those who supported the democratically-expressed self-determination of the unionist people"?

Why wouldn't I?!

The Irish do not form a separate race in your eyes and you comment that you are Irish but you also seem to indicate that the unionists formed their own nation by commenting on the "self-determination" of the unionist people. I find your position very perplexing.

What is perplexing about it?

Are you claiming that the Irish are a separate "race"?!! Are you denying that I am Irish?? I did not indicate that the unionists formed their own "nation", but if I did, what bearing has this got on the question of whether or not the Irish are a "race", or whether or not I am Irish?

You seem to be saying it's alright [sic] to feel Irish and British NOWADAYS but back in pre-partition Ireland this was not a position that was possible to have.

I seem to be saying nothing of the sort!

What nonsense you write!

[John]

willowfield,

This is going somewhere! Thanks for taking the time to respond to my points. I'm encountered numerous unionists who won't debate and instead hide behind catchphrases.

You mention the right of self-determination...do you believe that at least part of Ireland should have been granted independence earlier than the 1920s? Could this have lessened the violence? Resistance to British rule wasn't exactly a 20th century occurence.

If you believe in self-determination (Welsh example), then what Britain thinks regarding Ireland shouldn't matter. Shouldn't it be left to the island of Ireland and Ireland alone? Was the agreement of 1921 a result of Britain not respecting the wishes of the majority in Ireland and instead...offering only independence for some of the island? Let's not forget that even in NI, unionists are not an overwhelming majority (1 out of 3 seems quite a significant minority)...ADD that up on an island-wide level and unionists are a smaller minority than even NI nationalists.

I do think you are claiming otherwise when I say 'majority rule should always stand'. If the majority wanted all Ireland out of the UK, yet part of the island remained in it, how is that not going against the wishes of the majority?

Should every country that has a minority wanting a seperate state compromise?? Should every country make concessions like that? Should Canada let Quebec leave? How about Spain and the Basque region? Indigenous peoples in Australia?

I don't think there has EVER been a time in history when the majority of the island of Ireland's population was in favor of British involvement on the island.

That never stopped the British powers that be from interfering though, did it? =)

[willowfield]

John

You mention the right of self-determination...do you believe that at least part of Ireland should have been granted independence earlier than the 1920s?

There was no demand for independence, so there would have been no basis for granting it. There were, however, democratically-expressed demands for home rule and, in my view, these should have been met for those parts of Ireland expressing such a desire. This would, however, have necessitated partition, and I suspect that nationalists at the time would not have accepted it, just as they didn't accept it in the 1920s. Very unfortunate.

Could this have lessened the violence?

Only if nationalists had accepted Ulster unionists' rights and vice versa.

If you believe in self-determination (Welsh example), then what Britain thinks regarding Ireland shouldn't matter.

If you mean the people of Great Britain, I have already acknowledged that.

Shouldn't it be left to the island of Ireland and Ireland alone?

Er, no!! If you accept that people in GB cannot determine the future of NI, then logically you cannot say that people in ROI should determine it!

Was the agreement of 1921 a result of Britain not respecting the wishes of the majority in Ireland and instead...offering only independence for some of the island?

It was a sensible compromise, enabling most nationalists to get independence and most unionists to stay in the UK.

Let's not forget that even in NI, unionists are not an overwhelming majority (1 out of 3 seems quite a significant minority)...ADD that up on an island-wide level and unionists are a smaller minority than even NI nationalists.

It is not reasonable to add on the votes of people from outside a territory in order to manipulate the outcome of self-determination.

I do think you are claiming otherwise when I say 'majority rule should always stand'. If the majority wanted all Ireland out of the UK, yet part of the island remained in it, how is that not going against the wishes of the majority?

The majority of nationalists got independence and the majority of unionists got to stay in the UK. That is, in fact, a double majority.

Should every country that has a minority wanting a seperate state compromise?? Should every country make concessions like that? Should Canada let Quebec leave? How about Spain and the Basque region? Indigenous peoples in Australia?

If the people of Quebec want to leave Canada they should be facilitated. Likewise for the Basque Country and Spain. That is the very essence of self-determination! I don't believe in either case, however, that the people do want to leave.

As for indigenous peoples in Australia, I am unaware of any expressed desire for them to form a separate state. If there were, and it were practicable, then, in my view, it should be facilitated.

I don't think there has EVER been a time in history when the majority of the island of Ireland's population was in favor of British involvement on the island.

Maybe there wasn't, but that is irrelevant.

That never stopped the British powers that be from interfering though, did it? =)

No. But principles of self-determination were unknown for the vast majority of Ireland's and Britain's history.

[Young Irelander]

willowfield

"Yes,it was fair.Since there was no territorial homogeneity of either nationalists or unionists,minorities on either side of the border was always going to be the case.Such is the case across the world."

There was no territorial homogeneity?We are discussing pre-partition Ireland!If there was no border then there WAS territorial homogeneity!
What a hypocrite you are!If having minorities was always going to be the case why did unionists find the prospect of being a minority so unacceptable?
You undermine your own position!

"So if people in GB had refused to consent to the division of the British Isles,Irish nationalists should have accepted that?"

Whoa,whoa,whoa!Division of the British Isles?The Home Rule Bill would not have done that!
Home Rule for Ireland was an Irish issue affecting the island of Ireland!

"You have strange views on self-determination."

My views on self-determination are that the majority should be allowed determine their own future.Clearly you do find this position strange.

"There was.Nationalists demanded a united Ireland against the wishes of the unionist majority in what became NI.They wished to steamroller Irish independence over an unwilling people."

Are you drunk?There WAS a united Ireland in 1912.And what's this talk of "Irish independence"?Home Rule wouldn't have granted that.Independence was not seriously considered until after the 1916 Rising.
As for your nonsense about "in what became NI",willowfield you can't use hindsight to make your point you must use the facts and the context of the period in time!
I can't criticise unionists for denying me a united Ireland IN WHAT WILL BECOME the united Irish Republic!

"On the contrary,unionists pursued democratic self-determination."

What was democratic about setting up a paramilitary organisation and importing arms?

"The Home Rule Bill denied unionist self-determination which had been democratically expressed consistently in what became NI."

How did the Home Rule Bill deny "unionist self-determination"?Unionists would've been still able to consider themselves British!
Why again do you use "in what became NI"?Shame on modern unionists for denying nationalists their right to live in a united nation IN WHAT WILL BECOME the united Irish Republic!(Note:sarcasm)

"So if the Southern constitution included a clause that,say,denied citizenship to Jews,you would consider that to be legitimate merely on the basis that it was in the constitution?What nonsense!"

It would be legitimate.Doesn't mean I'd support it as I'm not anti-Semitic but its legitimacy could not be denied.There is nothing nonsensical about that since a constitution sets out how a country should be run.

"I did not indicate that the unionists formed their own "nation",but if I did,what bearing has this got on the question of whether or not the Irish are a "race",or whether or not I am Irish?"

You've frequently written about "self-determination" for unionists.If you're not talking about a unionist nation what are you talking about then?
If you do believe that unionists consist of their own nation,what about Irish people in pre-partition Ireland who felt Irish and British?
What about the self-determination of these people?
A Dubliner in pre-partiton Ireland loves his Britishness and his Irishness yet is alarmed at moves to divide Ireland in two?What is your view on a man such as this?
You claim partition was necessary for the self-determination of unionists.That argument doesn't stand up as Britishness wouldve been preserved under Home Rule.Your argument stinks!

"What nonsense you write!"

That's not offensive but rather downright hilarious!At least I answer questions in the context of their time rather than using ridiculous statements like "in what became of".According to you,nationalists should have predicted that a 6 county state of NI would emerge and that this non-existent future state should've been respected!Nationalists weren't clairvoyants!
Furthermore,you seem to think John Redmond was an Irish Republican and that Home Rule constituted Irish independence!
Come back to me when you learn to debate properly by using the proper context of time and when you learn more about Irish history!
As for now I'm off to bed.Night all!

[Jacko]

Hate to throw something of a spanner in the works regarding a statement of 'fact' that has formed the solid basis of so much arguement here but has, in itself, a dubious claim to accuracy.

What became Northern Ireland after partition could just about be described as enjoying the consent of the unionist people, but certainly not as unionism self-determining.
Partition was considered by Irish unionists to be their second best (or second worst) option - their overwhelming first preference being the whole island of Ireland remaining as part of the UK. So, if they had been allowed unhindered self-determination things would have remained as they were.

Besides that, self-determination, as an answer to colonialism, is a fine concept in that it allows for independence from foreign rule. But it presupposes that the colonised population are at one on the question of self rule. It doesn't take account of a society such as ours that was, and is, so divided on the issue of whether or not the outside power should actually stay or go.
In those circumstances, self-determination, when applied properly, amounts to little more than majoritarianism.

And, following on from that, Ireland should have been allowed, in its entirety, to go for independence. You cannot, as happened, abitrarily pluck one group of people, centred largely in a particular area, from the rest and allow them to go against the wishes of the vast majority, and then expect everything to work itself out. Could Andersonstown or Newry or South Armagh not, by that rule of thumb, claim the same right now?

Speaking as a unionist, partition was a cop-out and a disaster. It only pushed the problem further down the line for later generations - like ours - to have to deal with.

But, we have to deal with things as they are and not just spend our time bemoaning the lack of foresight (courage?) of those who have gone before us.

Northern Ireland exists and our task has to be working out how we can best live together and relate to those who live around us.

It is hardly accidental that, irrespective of where our political aspirations might lie, we are light years behind both the rest of the UK and Ireland in our lack of ability to cope with each other's differences regarding religion, politics etc. Not to mention our lack of tolerance for ethnic minorities within our community. While religion still predetermines political outlook and our attitudes to one another, and colour or ethnicity still marks someone as an unwanted outsider, we will remain in a time-warp of our own choosing.

Here ends the Sunday lesson for today (some chance!).

[Andrew McCann]

Siobhal

You make some excellent points. Ignore the ignorant who nominate you for categories of condescension. The desire for a 'united' Ireland is indeed illegitimate coming as it does, historically intertwined with terrorism, forced population shifts, political inteference, and bastardised political structures.

[Andrew McCann]

As for the rest of you.

1. Willowfield: You are British, not Irish, and I'll never consider you as anything other.

2. Other contributors: In your desire to slag me and each other off, you've aided the whole point of the debate. My aim was to prove that slagging off the British is more acceptable than slagging off the Irish. I've had around 37 people telling me what a rat I am for writing my sentiments on ATW. Now go and ring the reception desk at the Irish News and ask how many complaints they've had about the anti-British undertones in Collins' piece. The answer, I guarantee, will be 'none'.

[Jacko]

Andrew

I thought the whole point was to stimulate debate.

Any chance of those statistical details?

[willowfield]

Young Irelander

There was no territorial homogeneity?We are discussing pre-partition Ireland!If there was no border then there WAS territorial homogeneity!

Sorry? Border or no border there certainly was not territorial homogeneity of unionists and nationalists! There were nationalists living in unionist-majority areas and vice-versa both before and after partition.

What a hypocrite you are!

I am not a hypocrite. If you wish to make such accusations, you will have to provide some reasoning and evidence. Otherwise you should retract the accusation.

If having minorities was always going to be the case why did unionists find the prospect of being a minority so unacceptable?

I imagine for similar reasons that Irish nationalsts found the prospect of being a minority in the British Isles so unacceptable.

You undermine your own position!

I don't. Stop talking nonsense.

Whoa,whoa,whoa!Division of the British Isles?The Home Rule Bill would not have done that!

It would: it proposed a separate parliament for Ireland.

Home Rule for Ireland was an Irish issue affecting the island of Ireland!

And Irish unionists didn't want to be part of a home rule Ireland.

My views on self-determination are that the majority should be allowed determine their own future.

Then why are you arguing against partition, which facilitated the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists? Why are you arguing in favour of nationalist minority areas overruling unionist majorities?

Clearly you do find this position strange.

The above position is strange. As is your position that "A territory should not be divided without the consent of the people of that territory", the logic of which would lead to the denial of independence to Estonia, Pakistan, Southern Ireland, etc.

Are you drunk?There WAS a united Ireland in 1912.

I think it is clear from the context of the discussion that I was referring to an independent or home rule united Ireland.

And what's this talk of "Irish independence"?Home Rule wouldn't have granted that.Independence was not seriously considered until after the 1916 Rising [sic].

I was talking about the period after the 1916 rebellion.

As for your nonsense about "in what became NI",willowfield you can't use hindsight to make your point you must use the facts and the context of the period in time!

I'm not using hindsight. It is a fact that, at the time, the vast majority of people in what became NI wished to opt out of a home rule or independent Irish state.

I can't criticise unionists for denying me a united Ireland IN WHAT WILL BECOME the united Irish Republic!

Don't then.

What was democratic about setting up a paramilitary organisation and importing arms?

The fact that they were properly authorised by and accountable to democratic representatives.

How did the Home Rule Bill deny "unionist self-determination"?

By proposing to impose a Home Rule parliament on unionists who had clearly expressed opposition.

Unionists would've been still able to consider themselves British!

So? The issue was not what one considered oneself to be, but the imposition of a home rule parliament on unionist Ireland.

Why again do you use "in what became NI"?

Because NI had not come into being at that time!

Shame on modern unionists for denying nationalists their right to live in a united nation IN WHAT WILL BECOME the united Irish Republic!(Note:sarcasm)

There is no shame in denying nationalists the ability to overthrow NI's self-determination. On the contrary, attempting to override self-determination is shameful.

"So if the Southern constitution included a clause that,say,denied citizenship to Jews,you would consider that to be legitimate merely on the basis that it was in the constitution?What nonsense!"

It would be legitimate.

It is appalling that you would consider the disenfranchisement of Jews to be legitimate! Disgusting! No doubt Sean Russell, a Nazi-sympathising Irish nationalist, is one of your heroes. Shame!

Doesn't mean I'd support it as I'm not anti-Semitic but its legitimacy could not be denied.

It certainly could, and no doubt would, be denied! Denying citizenship on religious, ethnic or racial grounds can never be legitimate in the modern world.

There is nothing nonsensical about that since a constitution sets out how a country should be run.

The fact that a constitution "sets out how a country should be run" has no bearing on the legitimacy or otherwise of disenfranchising Jews.

You've frequently written about "self-determination" for unionists.If you're not talking about a unionist nation what are you talking about then?

The unionist people.

If you do believe that unionists consist of their own nation,what about Irish people in pre-partition Ireland who felt Irish and British?

What about them?

What about the self-determination of these people?

Every people has the right to self-determination.

A Dubliner in pre-partiton Ireland loves his Britishness and his Irishness yet is alarmed at moves to divide Ireland in two?What is your view on a man such as this?

I'm sure he would have been a decent man.

You claim partition was necessary for the self-determination of unionists.That argument doesn't stand up as Britishness wouldve been preserved under Home Rule.Your argument stinks!

Whether or not "Britishness would have been preserved" was not the issue. The issue was the imposition of a home rule parliament, and later an independent nationalist state, on Ulster unionists.

That's not offensive but rather downright hilarious!At least I answer questions in the context of their time rather than using ridiculous statements like "in what became of".

All my answers have been in the context of their time. Indeed, that is the reason for using the phrase "in what became NI", because AT THE TIME, NI had not been established!

According to you,nationalists should have predicted that a 6 county state of NI would emerge and that this non-existent future state should've been respected!Nationalists weren't clairvoyants!

Nationalists didn't need to be clairvoyants to look at and understand contemporary election results. No doubt the results were published in newspapers.

Furthermore,you seem to think John Redmond was an Irish Republican and that Home Rule constituted Irish independence!

I think neither.

Come back to me when you learn to debate properly by using the proper context of time and when you learn more about Irish history!

I already know how to debate properly: it is you who seems to be intellectually challenged in that department. I also know how to "use the proper context of time" and, while there is always room to learn more, I already have a sufficient grasp of Irish history: moreso than you it would seem.

[willowfield]

Jacko

Partition was considered by Irish unionists to be their second best (or second worst) option - their overwhelming first preference being the whole island of Ireland remaining as part of the UK. So, if they had been allowed unhindered self-determination things would have remained as they were.

"Unhindered self-determination", as you describe it, was unreasonable, since it would have overridden nationalists' rights.

And, following on from that, Ireland should have been allowed, in its entirety, to go for independence. You cannot, as happened, abitrarily pluck one group of people, centred largely in a particular area, from the rest and allow them to go against the wishes of the vast majority

You can. Every people has the right to self-determination. Your argument would deny independence to most of the former Soviet and Yugoslav states, to Pakistan, to Bangladesh.

Could Andersonstown or Newry or South Armagh not, by that rule of thumb, claim the same right now?

They could claim the right, but, in the case of Andersonstown, I don't think it is practicable to have non-contiguous enclaves leaving one state to join another. South Armagh, on the other hand, could quite easily join the Republic: I see no problem or difficulty there, other than the rather obvious fact that the people living in South Armagh don't want it to happen.

Andrew McCann

Willowfield: You are British, not Irish, and I'll never consider you as anything other.

Actually, I am both. You can consider me to be Martian if you want, but I control my own identity.

PS. You never explained how the Irish can be a separate "race"?

[Andrew McCann]

Jacko

There are innumerable polls with the figure I quoted, or thereabouts. Try the identity question in the latest Life and Times Survey: http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2003/Community_Relations/NINATID.html

[Andrew McCann]

Willowfield

The Irish claim a separate race on the basis of how they see their history, culture, political attitudes. The Ulster Unionist majority do not see themselves as ever being part of that vision. This is what makes them a separate race.

You can be in control of what you want, but for the purposes of this site, you are British - and British only.

[Jacko]

Willowfield

"Unhindered self-determination", as you describe it, was unreasonable, since it would have overridden nationalists' rights."

As opposed to the reasonableness of overiding the rights of unionists left in Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan and nationalists left in the then-new Northern Ireland?
I wasn't advocating it, merely pointing out the nonsense of trying to apply a principle designed for post-World War I colonies to Ireland.

"You can. Every people has the right to self-determination. Your argument would deny independence to most of the former Soviet and Yugoslav states, to Pakistan, to Bangladesh."

This statement begs the question: Who defines and how do they define 'a people'?
And also avoids my point regarding the inherent weaknesses in self-determination as a concept that was solely designed for colonies that were of one mind regarding independence from a colonial power - unlike Ireland. With regard to former Yugoslav and Soviet states - the answer lies in your accurate description of them as recognised 'states' with their own clear identities who, for a while, formed part of a greater political entity. When the larger political entities fell apart the vast majority within each 'state' chose self-goverment.
One could hardly argue that before partition the 6 north-eastern counties of Ireland formed a clearly recognised state.
As for Bangladesh and Pakistan: India as a whole self-determined to leave the empire, how they conducted their business after that was a matter for them.

"They could claim the right, but, in the case of Andersonstown, I don't think it is practicable to have non-contiguous enclaves leaving one state to join another. South Armagh, on the other hand, could quite easily join the Republic: I see no problem or difficulty there, other than the rather obvious fact that the people living in South Armagh don't want it to happen."

Apart from your dubious claim that the people of south Armagh don't want to leave the United Kingdom never mind claimed it to be obvious, if the logic of what you say was followed through with on a county by county basis, Northern Ireland would, in short order, probably be reduced to 3 counties. That's some recipe for a stable society - an ever-reducing Northern Ireland.

Andrew

At least allow people themselves to decide how they want to be described.