How many people here would like to see independence?

[Hirta]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

Funny you should mention NI, for that's exactly what your British friends did with it.

How do you mean? The pressures for the creation of Northern Ireland, stemming from the original opposition to Home Rule, came almost exclusively from within Ulster - witness the mass signing of the Ulster Covenant, Carson's formation of the UVF and the Larne gunrunning epidose, for example.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

Anyway, why were nationalist/republican areas left in NI? Roll on united Ireland. It's coming.

Because populations with differing cultural identities do not always conform to nice homogenous and mutually excluside boundaries. This is why large Unionist populations also found themselves in the Free State after partition - even Carson himself was from Dublin - and why Orange lodges exist in the present day Republic. However, a majority of the population within the Free State at partition wished for seccesion from the United Kingdom, and a majority of the population of Northern Ireland wished for continued Union with Great Britain. Partition was not perfect, but the two state solution was certainly the best available alternative to the all-out civil war that would have happened had partition not occured.

Further, it seems strange for you to wish for an independent Scotland which would almost certainly contain a Unionist population, and yet object to a Unionist Northern Ireland which contains a nationalist population. Double standards, methinks?

[Scottish_Republican]

"Partition was not perfect, but the two state solution was certainly the best available alternative to the all-out civil war that would have happened had partition not occured."

It's called divide and conquer. The British practiced it in the Holy Land, in Africa, in India with the Sikhs and Muslims. It's DELIBERATE.

They even tried it on in the American Wars of Independence, telling the RCs in the 13 colonies that they would defend them against an "evil Protestant government."

However, your argument about the Six Counties doesn't work that well. Fair enough, places like Derry and Belfast had complicated situations, but the two counties in the south west of the new statelet should never have been left in. Some concessions were made though, as a third of Ulster was left out of it.

"This is why large Unionist populations also found themselves in the Free State after partition - even Carson himself was from Dublin - and why Orange lodges exist in the present day Republic."

Aware of this too.

Further, it seems strange for you to wish for an independent Scotland which would almost certainly contain a Unionist population, and yet object to a Unionist Northern Ireland which contains a nationalist population. Double standards, methinks?

Not at all. NI was set up deliberately to undermine Ireland as a whole, and the British state deliberately stoked up religious hatred. And buried inconvenient facts like their harassment of Presbyterians as "dissenters", and the involvement of Ulster Presbyterians in the earliest stages of modern Irish nationalism.

Cornwall is more of a country than NI ever was. It's had a continuous non-English identity, which has lasted ten times as long as NI. NI was created during the 20th century. It was one of the ways, along with Pakistan that the British Empire tried to divide and conquer its enemies.

I don't think it's inconsistent. If the majority of Ireland votes for independence, it should get it. if most Scots vote for independence, we should get it, and without the inbuilt religious bull****.

Northern Ireland is equivalent to splitting the UK into two parts - one that voted to join the EEC, and one that didn't and now stays outside the EU. That would have kept UKIP at bay.

[Hirta]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

It's called divide and conquer. The British practiced it in the Holy Land, in Africa, in India with the Sikhs and Muslims. It's DELIBERATE.

But that cannot possibly be true. The pressures for the creation of Northern Ireland came almost solely from within Ulster and not from the British government in London. Witness Carson’s creation of the UVF, the mass signing of the Ulster covenant and the Larne gunrunning episode, to name but a few. Northern Ireland had no wish to secede from the United Kingdom as the rest of Ireland did, and were ready to assert this right to self-determination by the force of arms, just as their Southern counterparts did.

It’s possible to argue, as you do, that some areas of the new Northern state contained territory that should have been transferred to the Free State by the Boundary Commission that was set up shortly after partition, but that is not an argument against the very existence of that state. And as you and I both point out, Protestant areas of traditional Ulster counties such as Donegal found themselves in an explicitly Catholic state.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

NI was created during the 20th century.

So what? I can think of a plethora of nation states that were created during the 20th century, including, ironically enough, the Republic of Ireland. Are you arguing that their relatively recent creation renders them automatically illegitimate?

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

I don't think it's inconsistent. If the majority of Ireland votes for independence, it should get it.

Oh, but it is inconsistent. The island of Ireland consists of two culturally distinct entities and states, each given legitimacy by having a majority of its respective populations expressing, by the democratic process, their right to self determination. This same concept applies to the larger island to the east, which – as I’m sure you’re only too aware – is divided into three culturally distinct regions. It also so happens that a majority of the population within each of these regions in Britain votes for continued union. Now, if we use your logic – that of majoritarian democracy, determined across an entire island irrespective of individual and culturally distinct regions – Scottish independence should be decided by the entire population of Britain, and not just in Scotland. This is just as you would have the population of the Republic of Ireland determine the constitutional status of the North.

I find this a strange argument for a Scottish nationalist to advance.

[Scottish_Republican]

it's not inconsistent.

I don't support the notion of deliberately stirring up religious hatred. Anyway, a proper study of Irish religious history reveals the Anglican Church of Ireland as the villain. It treated Presbyterians as second class, and RCs as third class. Northern Ireland was sold as a "Protestant province".

"The pressures for the creation of Northern Ireland came almost solely from within Ulster"

After years of manufacture by the British state. In the early 19th century, the Orange Order excluded anyone but Anglicans, and it began to be realised that the British state was losing its grip on the bulk of the Protestant population. So during the nineteenth century, the state stirred up as much strife as it could between members of the various churches. Like they did between the Muslims and Hindus in India. In reality, they were the friend of neither.

It was also a useful tactic for employers, as they would say in Glasgow, along the same lines "Use the Orange and Green to divide the Red". Sectarian division = less trade union trouble.

"Northern Ireland had no wish to secede from the United Kingdom as the rest of Ireland did"

Northern Ireland was an entity deliberately manufactured. As the Irish satirist Myles na gCopaleen (not exactly a Protestant!) said (more or less - I am misquoting him badly), "Of course, Ulster is a nation. Ulster is distinct. As a Leinster man is from a different nation from the Dublin man. And the Galway man is a different nation from the Cork man" etc.

The majority of Ireland wished for home rule, but the British state stirred up religious prejudice, and armed certain people. Until the GFI, religious discrimination had run rampant in NI... and the British also succeeded in driving the Irish republic and Eamon De Valera into religious bigotry as well.

"So what? I can think of a plethora of nation states that were created during the 20th century, including, ironically enough, the Republic of Ireland. Are you arguing that their relatively recent creation renders them automatically illegitimate?"

The Republic of Ireland isn't a nation. Ireland is.

Northern Ireland isn't either. If you're a Ulster Unionist, one considers Britain your country/nation, and if one's a nationalist, you consider Ireland your country/nation. There is the phenomenon of so called "Ulster Nationalism", but this has never been to the fore, and is mostly a front for the NF in the area.

Can you tell me what Northern Ireland's governing football body calls itself?

"I find this a strange argument for a Scottish nationalist to advance."

I find it totally consistent. Some parts of the British state would love to turn Protestant against Catholic in parts of Scotland, or Glasgow against Edinburgh, or Teuchters against the Central Belt, or Highlands against Lowlands, or Borders against the lot of them. Easy done, but still despicable.

I notice you totally dodge my EEC analogy. When the referendum occurred, and certain areas didn't vote for EEC entry, shouldn't they have gone off and become a separate state? This is what you're arguing.

Oh, and by the way, Edinburgh North and Leith votes Labour, and Edinburgh West votes Lib Dem. Shouldn't they be turned into separate cities?

"Scottish independence should be decided by the entire population of Britain, and not just in Scotland."

As idiotic as suggesting Scots should have a vote in the London mayoral elections, or that every person in the UK should have a vote in every constituency and council ward...

[Hirta]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

it's not inconsistent.

Yes, it is. Simply put, you are arguing for self-determination for Scotland, and yet would deny that same right of self-determination to Northern Ireland. You want Scotland to secede from the United Kingdom (something the majority of the Scottish electorate do not want) and yet want Northern Ireland to be annexed by the Irish Republic against the democratically expressed wished of the people in the Province. It’s really not that hard to spot the hypocrisy at work. Indeed, I suspect that your contempt of Northern Irish self-determination is fired more by your desire to see the break up of the United Kingdom then any real respect for the democratic process.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

It treated Presbyterians as second class, and RCs as third class. Northern Ireland was sold as a "Protestant province".

I’m not denying that historically Catholics were heavily discriminated against in Northern Ireland – after all, Craig’s declaration that Northern Ireland was a “Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State” came hot on the heels of De Valera’s own declaration that the Free State was a ‘Catholic nation’ – but, since equality was guaranteed by legislation in the mid 1970s, this argument is largely irrelevant, if indeed it ever was. Take discrimination against blacks in the Southern United States, for example; few argued for the creation of a new Southern Black homeland, but rather that blacks were accorded the same civil rights as whites. This is what happened in Northern Ireland.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

Northern Ireland was an entity deliberately manufactured.

Well, yes, just as all nation states are, what with them being artificial socio-political constructs and all.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

The majority of Ireland wished for home rule.

Yes, but a majority in the North of the Ireland did not. Hence the North did not secede from the United Kingdom as the rest of Ireland did. This is called self-determination. Further, Ireland was guaranteed Home Rule in the Home Rule Act (1914) – the first ever act in the United Kingdom creating devolved government - a move which was delayed by the First World War and a fact which is often ignored by Republicans.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

…but the British state stirred up religious prejudice, and armed certain people.

Could you provide me with some examples? I’ve given you plenty re: the forces emanating solely from within Ulster opposed to secession, so it’s time you did the same. Take the Larne gunrunning and the IRA importation of arms, for example – both of these events were solely funded by Germany, not Great Britain, in the hope of destabilising their future enemy in the upcoming First World War. And any arming by Britain was, in the context of the time, a fairly natural response in a major part of the country threatening secession.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

The Republic of Ireland isn't a nation. Ireland is.

If it were, then presumably we wouldn’t be having this conversation. There are two political entities on the island of Ireland – the Republic, an independent state, and Northern Ireland, a constituent member of the United Kingdom. Both the populations of these entities have given their democratic consent for their respective countries, states or whatever you want to call it to exist.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

Can you tell me what Northern Ireland's governing football body calls itself?

It’s the Irish Football Association. So what? The Republic of Ireland’s official title is ‘Ireland’ and yet the Dail does not hold jurisdiction over the entire island. Profound? I think not.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

I notice you totally dodge my EEC analogy. When the referendum occurred, and certain areas didn't vote for EEC entry, shouldn't they have gone off and become a separate state? This is what you're arguing.

Potentially, yes. This is why, for example, Greenland withdrew from the European Community in 1985 despite having joined as a Danish province some twelve years earlier.

In any case, as I’m sure you’re aware, this analogy is not the same. Membership or otherwise of the EU, despite what the Daily Mail will tell you, does not effect national sovereignty. Further, not only are you forgetting that it was the future 26 county Irish Free State that seceded from the UK, and not the North that was doing the seceding, but – as Northern Ireland’s existence for over 80 years testifies – the Province was and is economically viable.

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

As idiotic as suggesting Scots should have a vote in the London mayoral elections, or that every person in the UK should have a vote in every constituency and council ward.

My point exactly. So why do you want the population of one sovereign territory – in this case the Republic of Ireland – to dictate the political status of another?

Ultimately, you wish for the democratic right of self-determination to be ignored in Northern Ireland. You need to come up with better reasons for this then some non-specific references to 19th century anti-Catholic discrimination.

[Scottish_Republican]

I've just lost an entire post here, partly because it took so long to reply to your lengthy message. I don't have time to do it again. [And this board just tried to do it to me a second time!]

A hundred years ago, Ireland was a single entity. It should not have been divided. But if you're going to divide it, it makes as much sense to take this down to a lower level than occurred i.e. splitting up Northern Ireland further.

Many people, including Unionists and Protestants, consider themselves Irish in the north.

NI's "determination" came from London. Not from itself. Religious hatred was stoked up until very recently. The RUC had very few RCs in its ranks, something which cannot be explained away just by the IRA.

Greenland is recognised as a country in its own right by Denmark. Ditto the Faroes. Even if these are not independent. But no one suggested splitting Greenland on the basis of how it voted.

Face it, the only "self-determination" that the British Empire ever recognised was an apparent wish to "remain loyal/British". Like the Falklands and Gibraltar. That's why Ireland and India had so many problems. No respect of these countries' democratic wishes, only religious discord encouraged by the government in London to prevent independence.

[Scottish_Republican]

This map speaks for itself.