simple really. Ulster Nationalism.

The majority of the Ulster people want a united Ireland so I assume you mean Northern Ireland nationalism Alan2.

Do you think this rise in nationalism will lead to an independent Northern Ireland movement or do you think this will lead to re-partition?

The majority of the Ulster people want a united Ireland

Have you figures to substantiate that claim ? Has there been any 9 county poll ?

George

This does seem to be an obsession of yours but just maybe you could open your mind to the fact that there is more than one defintion of Ulster?

The Elizabethan definition based on an county system adopted from England could possibly be outdated after a few centuries, no?

There was an interesting article in the Sunday Herald last week:

THE monarchy should be abolished and all parts of Britain should declare themselves republics in order to become true democracies.

It put me in mind of this quote by Roy Johnston on ATQ Stewart:

Stewart's unionism however is full of interesting paradoxes. There is a lurking suggestion that the Presbyterian republicanism of the 1790s was at heart unionist, in that it was part of republican movements in England, Scotland and Wales, which if they had succeeded would have led to a federal republic of these islands. Wolfe Tone would have been familiar with this aspiration.

Knew I'd get a reply from you on that Davros. Let me see. 43% of the Northern Irish electorate voted for unification parties in the last general election and throw in the quarter of a million plus Irish people currently in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan et voila - majority.

Just wondering what the attraction Northern Ireland protaginists have with calling the place Ulster.

Unionism spent the last 80 years demanding it be recognised by the Irish Republic then as soon as it is they start using a name that lays claim to part of said republic. Bit odd.

43% of the Northern Irish electorate voted for unification parties in the last general election

That's NOT true, please don't misrepresent.

protagonist:

Davros,
do you see a rise in Northern Ireland nationalism which for me is just another term for refusing to accept a democratic mandate for unification should that situation arise?

oops Davros,
keep forgetting -43% of the Northern Ireland's VOTING electorate voted for unification parties in the last general election.

I know you are a stickler for that word.

"Unionism spent the last 80 years demanding it be recognised by the Irish Republic then as soon as it is they start using a name that lays claim to part of said republic. Bit odd."

The fact that you accuse Norn Irn of using the term Ulster to 'claim' part of the Republic is a bit rich considering the Republic's official title of Ireland, is it not?

Unionism has also been using the term a lot longer than the Irish Republic has recognised NI - in fact since Unionism predates Northern Ireland... As I've posted elsewhere, the flag of the Northern Ireland government was called the Ulster Banner and it was brought about in 1951.

And George you're assuming that everyone in the occupied 3 want to see a united Ireland... is that a safe assumption to make?

I think because of overt or covert hatred of all things unionist and British displayed that increasing numbers of people in NI will be driven to look at it as a better alternative to a United Ireland George.

Hardly on topic, but I don't see how removing a monarchy that exercises little or no practical power makes a democracy more accountable.

The issue of Tony Blair using Royal Perogative is a completely separate issue, and if the argument is to be made to transfer that power to the House of Commons, it should be done so separately from the issue of whether the monarchy is abolished.

Effectively, the only thing ridding ourselves of the monarchy might do, is transfer Tony Blair's "Royal Perogative" to a president. The last thing this country needs is another politician.

Indeed George - what would the eligible electorate in the 9 counties be ? Over 1.5 million ?

2001 :

In NI it was over a million

the pro unification parties in the North got approximately 360,000 votes.

That's nowhere near 43% George :)

Stick to the truth.

So can we have a reasonable justification of your claim that a Majority in the 9 counties want Unification? After all some 20% of NI RCs don't want it.

Maybe I should have thought of this before...

Why can't we have a President, someone who would basically take the place of the Prime Minister, AND a monarchy?

Think about it. Abolish the post of the PM as is today. That we we get to vote in Wesminster elections for real local issues, and MPs go back to being representatives and delegates of their constituency and mindless slaves to the party.

At the same time, the 'president' is directly elected from across the nation in a single, first past the post vote. That way if, for example, people disagree with the president's decision to go to war in Iraq, they can vote him out at the next election, while still voting for their local labour candidate at Westminster if they so choose.

Real choice! Think of the possibilities...

Sorry I got carried away, the paragraph above should read:

Think about it. Abolish the post of the PM as is today. That way we get to vote in Wesminster elections for real local issues, and MPs go back to being representatives and delegates of their constituency and not mindless slaves to the party.

Beano,
correct, the official name of the country is Ireland and many unionists wanted Norhtern Ireland to be called "Ulster" back in 1921. Unionism had its chance to lay claim to Ulster but chose "Northern Ireland" instead.

The Irish Republic went with the name Ireland and nobody officially objected. The Greeks objected to Macedonia so it is officially known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The six counties have made their Northern Ireland bed and have to lie on it. You can't just wake up one day and decide to change the name of Northern Ireland to Ulster because it gives you a feeling of greater belonging and history.

As for the 3 counties, over 95% voted for Irish Republican parties so I think you can assume there is pretty much universal support for independence from Britain.

But you are right I shouldn't have said there is universal support for a united Ireland. There is universal support against British rule.

Davros,
there seems to me to be a increasing hatred of all things Irish in unionism as evidenced by the rise of the DUP and the UUP going "Simply British".

The only place I see see anti-Britishness thriving in Ireland is in the one place ruled by them. Down south there has never been better relations between Irish and British. Why is that?

How is the UUP asserting that it is simply British anti-irish? I still maintain you can be both. Was Margaret Thatcher, by virtue of her pride in her Britishness, anti-English?

"As for the 3 counties, over 95% voted for Irish Republican parties"
How many of the voters had Irish unity anywhere near the top of their agenda though? Like voters on the mainland, those in the South appear to have better things to worry about than Northern Ireland. Also, does this 95% include Fine Gael? From the little I know of Southern politics, I'd probably vote for them if I lived in one of the 3 counties in question.

The problem is George that you dare not acknowledge anti-britishness and anti-unionist sentiments as they are engrained in you.

The point you make about increasing hatred within Unionism is risible when one looks at events such as Papa Doc meeting Bertie.

George

The choice of Northern ireland was taken by an English civil servant not Unionists in the 20's.

However, I accept your point if you referred to the 1950's when Stormont considered the matter but decided not too (largely thanks to Brian Faulkner's opposition - a sign of his dangerous liberalism early on ;-))

It is noteworthy that the only condition that Craig and Carson put on the original UVF being incorporated into 'Kitchener's army' was that the Unit must have Ulster in its name (a break with the traditional practice of the Army for local units from here). Also the war memorial in Belfast and St Anne's Cathedral are both dedicated to the men of Ulster. Also despite the official name of the country Stormont put the name Ulster in a large number of the public bodies it established e.g. Ulster Transport Authority, Ulster Tourism Development Association (who did some very nice poster).

There is not an anti-irishness growing in Unionism. Simply an ever-growing frustration that despite widespread and growing Unionist acceptance of the different identity nationalists subscribe too that there is no equivalent acceptance from nationalists in fact the reverse.

"There is not an anti-irishness growing in Unionism. Simply an ever-growing frustration that despite widespread and growing Unionist acceptance of the different identity nationalists subscribe too that there is no equivalent acceptance from nationalists in fact the reverse."

Excellent stuff FD.

"However, I accept your point if you referred to the 1950's when Stormont considered the matter but decided not too (largely thanks to Brian Faulkner's opposition - a sign of his dangerous liberalism early on ;-))"

Just to flag this up, to everyone who claims unionists hate all things Irish, the reason Faulkner didn't want to change the name was because he didn't want to cede the term Ireland to the South. Not entirely unreasonable. Misguided maybe, but not unreasonable?

The neutralness of the term Ireland has been lost for a long time now. There is no point trying to resurrect it. Like McCartney said Give Ireland back to the Irish.

Call the island somethingelse and also its people. Neutral terms that can be built on so that the two nations on this island can end years of mistrust and misunderstanding.

Since the term Ulster provokes so much debate and is also less than neutral in present context, I propose renaming Northern Ireland to Dalriada ;)

Arise my fellow Daliradans! :D lol

Severe lack of typing ability today ... *blush*

Arise my fellow Dalriadans!!

Hardly on topic, but I don't see how removing a monarchy that exercises little or no practical power makes a democracy more accountable.

Posted by: beano @ Everything Ulst

Beano,

Unless you are being mischievous, you clearly have no idea how the UK State operates as the whole wretched system is based on forelock tugging, from Black Rod walking backwards as his rear end would supposedly embarrass the monarch, to the twaddle little boys and girls are taught in history lessons, Watt Tyler/English Revolution bad, King/Queen whatsit good. If you do not believe a top down political system is detrimental to democratic accountability pray tell me what its benefits are. By the way who is it the democratically elected politicians at Westminster swear allegiance to?

As to this Britishness, by all means believe what you will, but the fact is few outside the confines of north east Ireland agree with your assessment of your nationhood/whatever. The trouble with your type of Britishness, is you have forced it onto your neighbours, who like most logical people can see no relevance to it. By the way before partition, did the majority of people who lived in the six counties regard themselves as British, or were they perhaps Irishmen and women living within the UK and Ireland.

All the best.

Fair deal,
on what do you base that an English civil servant decided the name Northern Ireland in 1921? That's news to me but if you can show me the evidence, like who this person was and why Stormont said nothing, I'll accept it.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the NIO or its equivalent even named the place above the heads of the people living there. Either way, Northern Ireland is the name not Ulster.

As for Unionism finally beginning to accept after 80 odd years that northern Irish nationalists subscribe to a different identity, well done boys and girls. Welcome to the 21st century. What do you want a medal?

I might add that this acceptance hasn't yet stretched to creating a new Northern Ireland based on two equal cultures instead of one dominant one.

People go on about whether a united Ireland can deliver for unionism, well Northern Ireland if it is to survive has to deliver for unionism and nationalism. Good luck is all I'll say.

And as unionism is the only ideology that wants to continue this Northern Ireland project it is up to unionism to come up with the answers.

For me, "Simply British" implies there is no place for Irishness in the union.

Beano,
interesting but I would say that Faulkner knew there had to be an Irish element if unionism was to survive in the long term. The current lot don't really have a long term plan.

Beano,
Those living in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan are already on the mainland. I already conceded they might not all want unification but there is is universal acceptance of independence.

Davros,
I see this week I am to be tarred as anti-British merely for pointing out discrepancies in unionist thinking and nomenclature. In other words I refute your accusation of anti-Britishness entirely.

Funny you should mention Papa Doc, who refuses to even shake hands with Irish Leader Bertie Ahern in public. But I suppose that's not anti-Irish in your view that's just plain ignorance.

"few outside the confines of north east Ireland agree with your assessment of your nationhood/whatever"

Speak for yourself.

Mick

"the fact is few outside the confines of north east Ireland agree with your assessment of your nationhood/whatever"

The ignorance of others should never define one's self.

"did the majority of people who lived in the six counties regard themselves as British, or were they perhaps Irishmen and women living within the UK and Ireland."

Correction UK and Ireland should read GB and Ireland.

They were both. However, their sense of irishness was essentially regional/geographical. It is why they never felt attracted indeed felt alienated from the Gaelic, Celtic and Catholic irishness of the Gaelic revival (as well as the anti-British elements) that came to the fore and then became the foundation for the republic of ireland and the internationally accepted definition of what Irish meant.

The campaign of irish nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th century became essentially a choice between their sense of britishness and irishness, their sense of britishness was the stronger and it won through (relatively easily in fact).

"As for Unionism finally beginning to accept after 80 odd years that northern Irish nationalists subscribe to a different identity, well done boys and girls. Welcome to the 21st century. What do you want a medal?"

Thank you for withdrawing your charge of anti-irishness. Yes we want a medal becuase in the two-horse race of mutual acceptance of the other community we are well out in front. A point I note you chose to completely side step.

"I might add that this acceptance hasn't yet stretched to creating a new Northern Ireland based on two equal cultures instead of one dominant one."

Irish culture receives substantial public subsidy.
There is a dedicated irish language unit in the local public broadcaster.
GAA receives extensive coverage in the media and public subsidy.
There is an Irish language-medium education available and a Irish language newspaper.
People are free to display the flags they wish (with the exception of promoting an illegal paramilitary organisation).
Festivals in nationalist communities recieve public funding.
Cross-border initiatives receive substantial support (with no east-west equivalent).
Is this not equitable treatrment?

Before you can say it's dying you need to know what it is. What is Britishness?. I don't think it's one identity it's a collective term for many different identities. For example I am a Welsh Britain living in Norn Iron. I am Welsh but I'm also Bristish and I like that.

Goron Driphlyg y Gamp Lawn Pencampwyr.

Two Nations
"Call the island somethingelse and also its people."

Call the island Hibernia.
I don't see any reason to refer to the people as a whole but anyway, why not Hibernians?

Beano
"Since the term Ulster provokes so much debate and is also less than neutral in present context, I propose renaming Northern Ireland to Dalriada ;)"

I object. I'm a Dalriadan too, you're not having that name to yourselves ;)

DessertSpoon,

to add a bit more to your comment I'm not sure if you're aware that as gaeilge Wales is called 'an Bhreatain Beag' (literally Little Britain).

And the common surnames of 'Welsh' and 'Walsh' are 'Breathnach'. Or 'na Breathnaigh', plural.

So you'll always be British to us... ;)

As a resident of one of the 3 ''occupied counties'' as Beano puts it ;) i am better judged to comment on the political alligning of the forgotten Ulster people.Monaghan is a Sinn Fein controlled county..and would be deemed probably the most republican of the 3.My county has alot of Sinn Fein support too,but also alot of Fianna Fail support and Donegal would also have a guge Sinn Fein supporting population.Fine Gael would pick up the minority protestant vote along with the wealthier classes.On the question of a catholic/nationalist majority in the 9 counties of ulster...i would say a figure of over 90% of people in the 3 counties would support unification.

Welsh is the modern descendent of the ancient language once common to all the British Isles ;-).

"from Black Rod walking backwards as his rear end would supposedly embarrass the monarch, to the twaddle little boys and girls are taught in history lessons, Watt Tyler/English Revolution bad, King/Queen whatsit good."
I really don't see what black rod and the other such rituals have to do with the legislative process. They're there for a sense of tradition, ritual and culture. How exactly does this make the country undemocratic.

The monarchy and it's associated trappings are very popular with tourists for one. It also gives us a head of state detached from party politics. If the monarchy is so bad, why did Ireland essentially copy it after independence? The Irish President is little more than an elected version of the queen. Neither are there to fulfil a legislative purpose, other than assent which is a formality.

Based on my proposal, the primary legislator would be directly accountable to the people for the laws passed and local MP's performances on behalf of their constituents could be separated from national issues to a degree (surely it's got to be an improvement on the current situation?).

Dessertspoon,
I agree Britishness needs to be defined. Hamilton in his article mentioned how Gordon Brown tried to define it but failed.

“Indeed if people are to cope successfully with often bewildering changes then a sense of belonging is vital. And that in turn depends on a clear shared vision of national identity”.

Most people in the UK feel English, Scottish or Welsh first and British as an after thought.

As English nationalism grows, then Britishness plays a smaller and smaller part in the makeup of of any shared identity.

Fair deal,
"Thank you for withdrawing your charge of anti-irishness. Yes we want a medal becuase in the two-horse race of mutual acceptance of the other community we are well out in front. A point I note you chose to completely side step."

I don't know how you reach that conclusion when 43% of Northern Ireland's voting electorate want the place to cease to exist as they have been totally alienated.

I don't see unionism gaining ground or even holding its ground on this island. In fact, in the last 10 years, most Southern Irish Protestants can be added to to the rest who have totally alienated from northern unionist culture.

As for your list, it's only a Gaelic cultural one that to me is the very beginning of redressing the decades of cultural neglect. Business as usual. There is more to being Irish in the 21st century than the Irish language and the GAA.

How about offering military neutrality, dual currency, official status for the Irish language, the same economic chances as the rest on this island etc.

fair_deal
"Welsh is the modern descendent of the ancient language once common to all the British Isles ;-)."

Eh??? Think you need to research your languages a bit.

Before you can say it's dying you need to know what it is. What is Britishness?. I don't think it's one identity it's a collective term for many different identities.

I think that problem is about creating a political identity which can sustain democratic institutions.
The rise of English nationalism is directly related to the Westlothian question and the democratic deficit that has arisen in England as a result.
You could interpret the Northern Ireland problem similarly as being about how to create a functioning democracy.
Mark Langhammer's article in the Daily Ireland on Tuesday was an interesting analysis on these lines.

George

Thank you for side-stepping the lack of acceptance of Unionist identity by nationalists yet again.

Irish nationalists within the boundaries of the United Kingdom are entitled to fair and equitable treatment. However, your impractical wish-list has nothing to do with fair and equitable treatment. You simply want to create an infrastructure for a political goal that you have never managed to convince the required majority the value of.

As regards southern prods - the processes of exclusion and cultural assimilation in the irish state have succeeded. Hardly an example that will encourage Ulster prods to embrace unity.

"How about offering military neutrality, dual currency, official status for the Irish language, the same economic chances as the rest on this island etc."

- Neutrality? Sorry I don't believe in it as a principle. Pacifism yes, but sometimes you're left with no choice. (Iraq not necessarily being one of these occasions). Besides, wouldn't that necessitate us having our own army? (The last thing NI needs being MORE guns)

- Irish shouldn't even have official status in the south, let alone in NI. A minority language spoken almost exclusively as a second language to make a political point. The "official status" has led to discrimination in jobs in the south for anyone who can't speak what is practically a dead language.

- Dual currency... why? The areas that want it effectively have it in an unofficial capacity already.

"most Southern Irish Protestants can be added to to the rest who have totally alienated from northern unionist culture."
Surely you can accept that this must be at least partially down to 80 years of their culture being ignored and actively discouraged, not to mention their population being reduced from 10% to 2% of the population.

Maca

Some web sources for you:

http://users.comlab.ox.ac.uk/geraint.jones/about.welsh/#brythonic

"Its immediate descent is from the Brythonic language..."

www.answers.com

"Once, Brythonic languages encompassed most of Great Britain and Ireland – though in Ireland it was replaced with Goidelic when Gaels invaded sometime between 500 and 100 BC."

"Brythonic languages are thought to have disappeared from Scotland after Irish colonists brought a Goidelic language with them from their home island."

http://www.keltria.org/journal/labara1.htm

"Linguistic evidence suggests that perhaps by the middle of the first millenium BCE, Brythonic-speakers may have become dominant in both Britain and Ireland"

Beano,
so I take that as a no, no, no from unionism. It seems that this parity of esteem for northern nationalists is a bit like the ma at dinner time when I asked for chips: "you'll take what your given and like it".

In an adult relationship the couple discuss what they both want and reach a compromise.

Irish is protected under the constitution and what makes you think it shouldn't be. It is the will of the Irish people that it is an official language and that Irish speakers have equal rights in their own country. I find it unfortunate that you would rather take away their rights.

Those against Irish can call for a referendum to remove its status if they feel they can win.

As for the culture of Southern Protestants being ignored, believe or not, not every Protestant on this island feels ignored, discouraged or downtrodden. Southern Irish Protestantism's biggest problem since the foundation of the Irish state has been good looking Catholics.

In 1960, Protestants held 60% of the Irish Republic's wealth. That's the type of discouragement most people can live with.

"In an adult relationship the couple discuss what they both want and reach a compromise."

Nice try george. Both sides did do this and I understand it was called the Good friday Agreement. None of what you listed was contained within it.

The analogy is not a married couple but dare I suggest Little Britain and that apparently wheelchair bound Andy and his never-ending ever-changing demands.

The Scotsman writer also admits that the independence movement has stalled, post devolution. (Presumably indicated by the SNPs reduced vote).

He is right to ask what will happen in England. This question could become live if the next Parliament returns a majority of Labour but not within England.

However, since the Conservatives and Labour are both pro-British and pro-union, would either want to raise the issue? When the Conservatives raised it, on the question of Top-Up Fees, which were pushed through on Scottish votes, Tony Blair questioned the Conservatives' unionist credentials. Highlighting the dangers for the Conservative and Unionist party.

George

Beano raises a good point. How could NI be militarily neutral? A sub-part of the UK could not have its own foreign policy.

Fair deal,
I thought the GFA was a failure and we were on to new negotiations. I don't think it was a failure for the population south of the border as it gave the people the chance to vote yes for peace and unity only by consent.

Now Northern Ireland has to deliver to maintain the border it cherishes so much. So what's the new plan? The Republic isn't standing still you know and the bigger the economic gap between the regions the more pressure on the border.

I'm interested in hearing what unionism plans for the rejuvenation of NI and am just giving some suggestions as to what I as an Irish person would have liked if I had been born 100 kilometres further north and found myself in your kingdom.

Don't watch Little Britain. I have only just got British TV in the last couple of months and find that programme quite juvenile and dare I say it, German in humour.

Have a nice weekend, I'm off to Dublin to savour the ever improving talent.

Beano,

Your new name. You forgot to add "Everything Ulster..except the Irish bits"

Why don't you go the whole hog and take the Irish root out of Ulster and call yourself "Everything Ster"

slugg9987,
why can't the island of Ireland have a common defence policy? Is there not another status that could be introduced for NI rather than integral part of UK?

The point is that Northern Ireland has to deliver for both nationalists and unionists. It has to deliver today what this imaginery united Ireland would supposedly deliver tomorrow.

That means Irish people north of the border feel as Irish as those south of it and British people in Northern Ireland feel as British as those in Britain.

Northern Ireland has tried 80 years of "Ulster is British" which was an unmitigated disaster so we have to move on. Time to think outside the box.

Labour certainly aren't keen to raise the issue. Gordon Brown's old spindoctor Charlie Whelan said recently that the idea was to promote devolution in Scotland and Wales and keep talking about Britishness in England in order to save the union. He was very sniffy about David Blunkett's decision to make a speech about English identity.

The Tories are in a very interesting dilemma. They are staunchly unionist but they have hardly any MPs in Scotland or Wales. They are an English party facing a permanent disadvantage because Labour Scottish and Welsh MPs are effectively lobby fodder with no stake in English issues (or Northern Ireland ones, hence top up fees). The Tory policy is to have English votes on English issues, which itself raises problems, like what happens if the Government has no majority in England?

George-There is thinking outside the box and then there is muddled thinking. Which is what you just served up in your 4:08.

Tom-you are right I can see the problems for the Tories. Their Scottish and Welsh candidates are undermined if they continue this policy of abstaining on English issues like university fees-they are saying "vote for me and I will not vote on some things". Yet, if there is a Tory majority in England, it will be tempting for the Tories to start campaigning for more power in England. There is little sign however that the English are unhappy with UK rule rather than English rule. So I don't think anything like an English government will result.

George

As re our earlier debate on the use of the term Ulster and on the origins of the phrase Northern ireland

The phrase 'Northern Ireland' first appeared in government proposals after the First World War drafted by civil servants in London. The proposals advocated partition into two jurisdictions one to be called 'Southern Ireland' and the other 'Northern Ireland'.

"The Republic isn't standing still you know and the bigger the economic gap between the regions the more pressure on the border."

Unionism has economic arguments whatever the circumstances. If Ulster is flourishing we argue why risk it? If it is failing we argue we're a basket case that the RoI can't afford.

As regards the vision thing Unionism is basically agreed on the formula for improving the NI economy and it is not particularly different from elsewhere in the world - reduce the reliance on the public sector, invest in infrastructure, improve educational and training standards, encourage those who have studied on the mainland to return and promote SME's as the primary generator of jobs and seek FDI that helps the local economy innovate.

The first and the third represent the greatest challenges. The present means of financing the second may prove a mistake.

fair_deal

Thanks for the links above, I particularly liked this bit:

"Meanwhile, the cultural imperialists foster the idea that Celtic languages (and all minority languages) are superficial irrelevancies.."

He must have been reading Beanos posts!

This is a pretty silly debate.

I'm not from a Nationalist background but it was obvious to me that George meant the nine-county unit, which is also generally what I mean when I say 'Ulster'. Yes, it is sometimes an abbreviation for 'Northern Ireland' in the same way 'America' is for 'the United States of America' or even 'Europe' is for 'the European Union', but the context was entirely clear.

I disagree, however, with George's claim that the majority in nine-county Ulster supports a United Ireland. Firstly, it opens up the debate on how you calculate indifference. Secondly, I've never met a 'Unionist' who doesn't support the link with GB, but I know of at least two SDLP candidates (one elected) who expressly do/did not support a United Ireland, as well as a member of Ogra (FF youth wing) in Monaghan who said he and his social circle would currently vote 'no' in any referendum on a 'UI'.

Much more importantly, though, it's utterly irrelevant! The two jurisdictions are what count for such a vote. Don't bet on them voting the same way any time soon. So then, real politics anyone...?

I see this week I am to be tarred as anti-British merely for pointing out discrepancies in unionist thinking and nomenclature.

I have remarked on your hatred of all things British , unionist and Unionist for many weeks George. I wish you would 'come out'. At least pat's sectarianism is overt.

George: can we have a reasonable justification of your claim that a Majority in the 9 counties want Unification? After all some 20% of NI RCs don't want it. Only a third of the electorate in the North voted for parties supporting Unification.

The sectarian headcount method - on which I suspect you base your claim but don't want to admit - as circa 20% of Northern RCs don't support unification, I doubt that even if Cavanman's estimated 97% in his own county was applied to the other 2 counties there would be a majority voting for unification.

Anyway, back to the article...

It's a very good article. On devolution, I thought Scottish independence within a generation possible, and within my lifetime likely. But like the article's author, I think in retrospect I underestimated the practical links that keep England and Scotland together.

Simon Scharma outlines some of these in the latter part of his (in my view excellent) _History of Britain_, where he makes the point that the UK or Great Britain are no more artificial constructs than Scotland or England.

However, there are contemporary practical bonds too. The UK is currently one of the EU's 'Big Three', a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a member of the G7/G8 leading economic powers. Given current economic and population increase/decrease levels, it is quite possible the UK will be the largest economy in the world's largest economic block within a generation. Yet, without Scotland (or, depending on how you look at it, without England) none of this would/will be possible.

Frankly, the loss of NI with 3% of population and 2.5% of the economy could be dealt with comfortably. But the loss of Scotland with 10% and 9%? That's not quite so easy.

Like I say, it's a good article, it's just worth pointing out the other side of the coin. What Scottish independence would mean for NI is a very interesting question that I still wouldn't place entirely in the realms of hypothesis, but the more I think about it, the more hypothetical it becomes.

It all goes back to that old line originally said about the Catalans: everyone knows the Scots want to be independent, it's just no one likes to talk about it...

I've rarely seen a thread on slluger that has;
1: gone completely off the subject.
2: had so many factual errors.

Henry's potted history of the Republic of Ireland is so laughable that it's pointless even pointing out the errors.

CavanMan claims local knowledge of the three Ulster counties and comes up with this nonsense "Monaghan is a Sinn Fein controlled county..and would be deemed probably the most republican of the 3.My county has alot of Sinn Fein support too,but also alot of Fianna Fail support and Donegal would also have a guge Sinn Fein supporting population.Fine Gael would pick up the minority protestant vote along with the wealthier classes".

If you actually bother to checks the facts, you will find that in last year's local elections SF managed to get 14 councillors elected in these three counties, compared with 31 for Fianna Fail and 25 for Fine Gael. There must be a hell of a lot of wealthy protestants if they can get almost twice as many councillors elected as SF!!!

As for the actual subject of the thread, I'm afraid it too does not stack up with the facts. Support in Scotland for the SNP has decreased at every equivilent election since the introduction of devolution. Devolution has been a success, not least in curbing support for nationalism.

It would be interesting to know how preferences would shift if the alternative to a united Ireland was northern independence rather than the UK.

There is little sign however that the English are unhappy with UK rule rather than English rule. So I don't think anything like an English government will result. .

At the moment, there are two separate trends. A popular one (the resurgence of English identity) ,and a constitutional one (emergence of problems about the Westlothian question), both of which are the result of Scottish devolution.

The question is whether they will come together.

An English Parliament would certainly be more democratic than the present system. The English people are being asked to forgo this because it is poses a threat to the union.

I am not sure they will put up with that indefinitely.

Keith M

As for the actual subject of the thread, I'm afraid it too does not stack up with the facts. Support in Scotland for the SNP has decreased at every equivilent election since the introduction of devolution.

But the article says exactly that!

In fact, support pro-independence parties won more seats in the last Holyrood election that the previous one (although whether that indicates increasing support for independence goes back to my earlier point about 'calculating indifference').

Basically the article is arguing that the SNP cannot deliver Scottish independence on its own, but events in England might. It's a well-argued case, although as indicated I suspect it misjudges a few things.

IJP : "In fact, support pro-independence parties won more seats in the last Holyrood election that the previous one". Support and the 2001 general election was significantly down on 1997. May will give us an interesting update on this issue as Labour is not overly popular in Scotland these days so all oppositon parties are likely to gain.

like the article's author, I think in retrospect I underestimated the practical links that keep England and Scotland together.

Are the links between Scotland and England really stronger than the lnks between England and the Republic were before independence?

I thought it was interesting that when it was first suggested Ireland would have to adopt ID cards, Michael McDowell objected that it would be an attack on Ireland's Common Law tradition, which comes from English rule and which Scotland does not share.

In that respect maybe the Gaelic Catholic Ireland has proved to be as good a guardian of Anglo-Saxon political traditions as the UK.

If the monarchy is so bad, why did Ireland essentially copy it after independence? The Irish President is little more than an elected version of the queen.

Hardly a minor innovation. Again, maybe Ireland has advanced that particular aspect of the English democratic tradition further than the UK.

Tom Griffin

"..Ireland's Common Law tradition, which comes from English rule and which Scotland does not share."

Is that true? I thought the "common law" was the basis in all countries with an anglo saxon culture, UK, ROI, USA, Canada, Australia etc. Scotland is no different to any of those. Is it not just that they have different words for the same thing?

In fact, even apartheid South Africa

fair_deal
"Maca, Some web sources for you:"

I'll believe you for now, but only because I don't have time to do the research on it ;)

Fair_deal
I remember now the problem I had with your post: "the ancient language once common..." by which I understood you were saying it was the only language of the islands, which of course isn't correct. Maybe i'm being pedantic but you should have said "an ancient language..." ;)

Tom Griffin said

It would be interesting to know how preferences would shift if the alternative to a united Ireland was northern independence rather than the UK.

Interesting question. However, the section of the Agreement that deals with a referendum only mentions two constitutional outcomes - remaining part of the UK or joining the Republic.

Independence is not on the GFA menu, nor are other potential possibilities, such as joint sovereignty, which seems a more likely option, IMHO.

'Is Britishness dying?'

It will if people let it do so.

I would agree that devolution in the U.K. has seen and allowed the British Identity to run away.

I suppose if i'm posting I may as well post on topic...

I see no reason why Britishness needs to die. Even with the re-emergence of Englishness would that not mean the English would loosen their *perceived grip* on Britishness? What percentage of the UK is English, 80%? Quite often on the news I hear "English" being used instead of "British", it's incorrect obviously but that's what's often used.
The Scottish & Welsh always seemed keen to express their own identity but perhaps if "British" is not perceived to be owned more by any one of the UK countries it might actually strengthen "Britishness". Make any sense? (ok i'm just waffling here)

The section of the Agreement that deals with a referendum only mentions two constitutional outcomes - remaining part of the UK or joining the Republic.

What i'm trying to get at is what would happen in a situation where the UK broke up? The most likely scenario for that is Scottish independence.

That would leave a union consisting of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

I suspect this is one reason why David Trimble has expressed reservations about the emphasis on Ulster-Scots identity.

If Scotland did leave the union, I think Britishness as the identity of the UK state would go into terminal decline.

Conversely, the British-Irish Council might come to the fore as a forum for relations, and the Republic might actually move closer to Scotland and England.

What IS 'Britishness' anyway?

I thought this paragraph about Scottish devolution could also apply somewhere closer to home:

But the mantra that devolution was a "process not an event" was always something of a necessary cop-out - it allowed nationalists to dream of moving beyond the confines of devolution on the one hand, and unionists to hold to the view that there would be no desire to add to the devolved Parliament’s powers on the other. The flaw was that rather than deciding on the nation’s future and then building institutions around that resolution, we chose to avoid the question and build a "process" of devolution which we hoped would answer the question for us. Unsurprisingly, that didn’t happen and the conflict of identity has simply been given a more public forum.

I wonder how the English will react to a Scottish Prime Minister at this particular time anyway...

The million dollar question.

There's also the issue of how the Scots will react if Jonathan Powell is right and a Scottish MP can never again be Prime Minister.

I don't see the English having any problem with a Scottish PM as such.

Especially Mr Brown - he is liked.

Neither of the other party leaders are English. Nor was Blair's predecessor. Nor his most obvious successor.

Party leader and PM - two VERY different things!

Tom

Are the links between Scotland and England really stronger than the lnks between England and the Republic were before independence?

I don't think they can be compared. Irish nationalism is generally an ethnic nationalism based on people, whereas Scottish nationalism is generally a civic nationalism based on institutions. There's a reason for that.

What i'm trying to get at is what would happen in a situation where the UK broke up? The most likely scenario for that is Scottish independence.

Very interestingly, this paragraph is entirely correct.

If Scotland did leave the union, I think Britishness as the identity of the UK state would go into terminal decline.

If Scotland did leave the union, I can't see how NI could but follow it out. The union would end.

The idea of a 'British-Irish Council' similar to the Nordic Council appeals to me, whether it consists of two, three, four or five nation-states.

Gonzo

As I've stated before, in joint authority who places the road signs? who decides the phone codes? if London's at war and Dublin isn't, is NI at war?

Joint Authority is not an option because in practice it cannot but lead to independence.

But the mantra that devolution was a "process not an event" was always something of a necessary cop-out - it allowed nationalists to dream of moving beyond the confines of devolution on the one hand, and unionists to hold to the view that there would be no desire to add to the devolved Parliament’s powers on the other...

I thought about quoting that in my first post - a wise outtake!

Of course, the UK already has a Scottish-born, Scottish-educated PM!

Maca

If what you're saying is that devolution has the potential to balance the internal national identities of the UK thereby strengthening the overall identity of the country as a whole, I understand exactly where you're coming from!

As I've stated before, in joint authority who places the road signs? who decides the phone codes? if London's at war and Dublin isn't, is NI at war?

Joint Authority is not an option because in practice it cannot but lead to independence.

I wasn't necessarily advocating Joint Authority, but I imagine the Roads Service would place the road signs. What language they'd be in might be more contentious!

If the British were at war, I imagine that the British soldiers would be the ones affected. The Irish soldiers could remain in Thiepval to keep things ticking over. ;o)

As usual for NI, it would be the 'least worst option', because it would a last resort type of thing. We've been seen as 'a place apart' for so long, I'm not sure JA would be seen as much different.

Ok, it's problemmatic. Never really thought about it, but don't see how it would lead to independence. I thought it might be more likely to be a stepping stone to a united Ireland.

test

Joint sovereignty is completely impractical.

As for a Scottish PM, the English are historically very willing to accept others in top posts - monarchy, national football manager, archbishop of canterbury, bank of england (founded by a scot) etc - so long as they do a good job.

fair_deal,

'Simply an ever-growing frustration that despite widespread and growing Unionist acceptance of the different identity nationalists subscribe too that there is no equivalent acceptance from nationalists in fact the reverse.'

Unionist acceptance of Irish identity?! The raison d'etre of Unionism, was and is, to destroy Irish identity, from denial of self-governance to the slaying of the language to the partition of its people.

Irish nationalism/republicanism has at its core an acceptance of differing identities. The Irish people at every opportunity have expressed their wishes for a country independent of Britain. It is the unionist tradition that has murdered the expressed manifestation of Irish identity as a whole. Its unionism that is a place apart and not interested in respect, why would you subject six-county nationalists to british rule despite 800 years of expressed desire not to be part of Britain? WE don't want it,never have,never will. The British heritage is accepted and welcome to me, Union with Britain is not. Show some respect to the Irish nationalists on this Island,(around a lot longer than Norn Iron-my granda is older).

WE don't want it,never have,never will.

Odd then that they acknowledged and fought for the Stuarts, recognising them as the true Kings of Ireland.

Bobby,

'Odd then that they acknowledged and fought for the Stuarts, recognising them as the true Kings of Ireland.'

Stepping stones lad. Oh, and who fought exactly?
I once supported england to help Ireland in a football group. don't mean i like the hoors

I once supported england to help Ireland in a football group. don't mean i like the hoors

LOL - hang your head in shame!

I don't see the English having any problem with a Scottish PM as such.

Especially Mr Brown - he is liked.

On merit, Brown is undoubtedly the best man to succeed Blair. However, this is where the constitutional issue drives the identity issue.

Unlike Blair or Howard, Brown sits for a Scottish constituency. Across a huge swathe of domestic policy, he would be taking decisions for England that did not affect his constituents. That problem would be compounded the more he relied on Scottish MPs for his majority.

The West Lothian question is a basic problem of democratic accountability, rather than of identity politics, but the solution to it is bound to involve some kind of recognition of English identity.

"Unlike Blair or Howard, Brown sits for a Scottish constituency. Across a huge swathe of domestic policy, he would be taking decisions for England that did not affect his constituents. That problem would be compounded the more he relied on Scottish MPs for his majority."

But a PM considers the welfare not of his own constituents (whether or not in a safe seat like Brown) but the democracy as a whole. To win the next election he must pay close attention to England.

I just don't believe the West Lothian problem is a substantial problem. Basically a PM from a Scottish constituency has the same electoral incentives as one from any other constituency. He needs to win the next election. To do that he cannot afford to choose policy for England that he believes would lose votes in England. If he does, he is out at the next election. Scotland is too small to affect substantial swings of mood in England.

That's my view. We shall see...

IJP
"If what you're saying is..."
Exactly. But a lot better put than I was able at this late hour. ;)

IJP

"Are the links between Scotland and England really stronger than the lnks between England and the Republic were before independence?

I don't think they can be compared. Irish nationalism is generally an ethnic nationalism based on people, whereas Scottish nationalism is generally a civic nationalism based on institutions. There's a reason for that."

What's the reason?

I don't know what you mean by a "civic nationalism based on institutions".

To me the nature of Irish and Scottish nationalism are basically the same. People see themselves as having a different identity from the English. People feel thay have been or are being mistreated by the English. People want independance.

The main difference is the extent of the feeling.

One major difference in Ireland was religion. That gave a bite to Irish nationalism that doesn't exist in Scottish nationalism.

Irish nationalism was never just about ethnic difference. That's too simplistic. Did any pre 1921 Irish nationalist ever talk in terms of ethnicity? Did they claim to be ethnicly different from the Welsh or the Highland Scots?

Not at all, remember when Celtic were founded in 1888, the priests in charge picked that particular new fangled name because, in theory, it covered both Irish and Scottish bases.

"Ethnic" is not a good word to use here it's too loaded and too modern. The promotion of a distinct culture, Irish language etc is what we are talking about. The fact that it was never really promoted should give you some idea that Irish nationalists were not exactly fervent (lip service I believe it's callled). The Welsh have been more successful (though that should qualify them for the label of "cultural fascists" if you have a unionist viewpoint).

Also, think about Scots poetry, Hugh MacDiarmid and how the SNP was set up, maybe you'll understand the cultural dimension of Irish nationalism a bit better.

What does it mean for NI Unionists, that interesting but it's a bit late. That's me done.

"The Welsh have been more successful (though that should qualify them for the label of "cultural fascists" if you have a unionist viewpoint)."

AFAIK the Welsh weren't using their language as a political football though, and usage of said language was already considerably widespread rather than being artificially re-introduced.

Beano,

The only person using Irish as a political foorball is yourself.

OK, bilingual education in NI is one of your pet hates. I already know that.

The fact is that numbers of Welsh speakers are increasing. If it happened here with Irish speakers narrowminded people like you would be mouthing off. Thanks for proving my point.

The fact is that numbers of Welsh speakers are increasing.

Setting aside your disagreement with Beano - How do the numbers of people speaking Welsh as a First Language in the home stand ? I know there are loads of enthusiasts learning some Welsh, but is the core
resevoir of first language/home language speakers expanding or shrinking ?

Good morning Dav,

Expanding, apparently, bucking all trends for languages in a similar position.

Thanks Biffo - I used to work with a girl whose first language was Welsh. It was great to hear her yakking with friends. Diversity is important and to be encouraged.

The children in my and my brothers generation (todays 25 - 30 year olds) were brought up speaking English first (although Welsh was taught in schools). Kids today seem to be largely English speaking too (but it really does depend where you are from). As for "cultural fascists" there are plently of them in Wales. There are plently of them everywhere. The Welsh aren't always as well armed as the Irish ones though ;-) Look winky face - before anyone has a righteous fit it was just a little joke.

One major difference in Ireland was religion. That gave a bite to Irish nationalism that doesn't exist in Scottish nationalism.

One of the sources of early Scottish nationalism was apparently Presbyterian concern at the influx of Irish Catholic in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Hence, West of Scotland Catholics tend to be staunchly Labour, a la John Reid. Ironically, Glasgow Celtic supporters maybe one of the biggest bulwarks of the union.

Tom,

Interesting thought, but I think the opposite was the case.

The reaction to the influx of Irish catholics was orangeism, not nationalism, which isn't a surprise when you think about it.

I worked in Glasgow for a year and lived within earshot of the Hampden Roar, so I have some familiarity, though I don't understand all the subtleties.

One thing that I remember was football experts (which I am not) commenting on football fans indifference to the national team, which surprised me quite a lot, until I thought about the amount of old firm fans who wave either a tricolour or a Union Jack.

Anyway, that was in the early 90's. Have things changed? Also I don't know about attitudes outside the west of Scotland.

Beano,

I also meant tell you, as you seem to be unaware -Irish never died out here in Ulster, in fact Ulster boasts more native Irish speakers than any where else in Ireland. Does that not make you proud - you being "everything Ulster"?

Also, Welsh nationalism, language and politics do mix - Plaid Cymru.

Biffo -

in fact Ulster boasts more native Irish speakers than any where else in Ireland

What made you think that? This isn't remotely near true I'm afraid.

Is maca around today, I have a few questions to ask him about irish

Ringo,

I heard it some time ago, fewer speakers emigrated from Donegal during the 80's. It doen't take much of a change in demographics of actual cause a big change in demographics of Irish speakers.

It made sense to me, bourne out by personal experience of visiting Donegal and Galway "Gaeltacht"

Do tell all you know.

Biffo,

There's an interesting paper on the role of sectarianism in early Scottish nationalism here:

Irish Immigration and Scottish identity

The author draws the conclusion that nationalism is inherently exclusionary, but I think his material says as much about the divide and rule logic of unionism.

Biffo

There are lots of differences. But historically two can be marked out in one sentence: there was a Scottish state existing prior to unification, whereas there was no Irish state existing prior to colonization.

Because there was a previously-existing Scottish State with its own institutions, and indeed it was one of these institutions (the Parliament) that voted itself out of existence, Scottish nationalism is not about a distinct 'people' but about distinct 'institutions'. Yes cultural differences (complete with various bouts of invention) are thrown into the mix, but these have nothing specifically to do with the cause of Scottish independence/nationalism. I'd say most people who go out of their way to wear kilts and play bagpipes have little difficulty with remaining in the UK.

As there was no previously-existing Irish state, and because Ireland was colonized rather than opting for unification, Irish nationalism doesn't have institutions, but rather a 'folk memory' for a distinct 'Irish nation', complete with literature, music and sport. Culture is therefore central to it in a way that it isn't in Scotland. Many Nationalists participate in certain cultural activities as a means of symbolizing their Nationalism - I can't think of that happening at all in Scotland.

As a result, the issue is nothing like as polarized in Scotland, because the case is made (and opposed) almost entirely rationally, and a good number of people swing for and against (this is also a product of Scotland's Enlightenment). Nor is it the main political issue (I wonder how many Green or SSP voters are really bothered about independence, or indeed how many Labour voters would really have a problem with it?)

In un-Enlightened Ireland, the issue has remained, frankly, ethnic. That is the difference.

Mind, that said, at the end of the day it's really all about economics...

Thanks Tom

I'll check that out a bit later.

Biffo -

There was a report done in 2002 commissioned by Eamon O'Cuiv's department, and the most striking thing about it was that of the 154 Electoral Divisions that were classified as being a Gaeltacht, only 18 were Fíor Gaeltachtaí - ones where over 75% spoke Irish daily. Of these 18 only 12 were outside Galway, 4 in Donegal and 2 in Kerry.

As for hard population stats - the report above does contain one indicator which is useful in this regard - the 'Deontas' or the grant to Irish speaking families.

Assuming the size of a family doesn't vary significantly between the different regions, there are over one and a half times as many families in Galway who qualify as there are in Donegal. If the number of families in Mayo (about 12% of the Donegal figure) is added the Connacht figure is higher again. The Munster figure is 4/5ths that of Donegal.

Of these 18 only 12 were outside Galway, 4 in Donegal and 2 in Kerry.

Should read:
Of these 18 only 6 were outside Galway, 4 in Donegal and 2 in Kerry. The other 12 were in Galway.

"Ulster boasts more native Irish speakers than any where else in Ireland. Does that not make you proud - you being "everything Ulster"?""

I'm not interested in the other 3 counties though :) even if what you say is true, which seems to be being debated by people with more knowledge on the issue than myself.

Irish is rarely used in Northern Ireland according to the European minority languages bureau, which exists specifically to promote minority languages. I don't think it's unfair to say that a good proportion of those learning the language do so to show how Irish they are, which in turn, is often to show how not British they are (not that this is always the case), especially in the more urbanised east of the province around Belfast.

I've no problem with the Irish language per se, and may in fact look into learning (at least a little) of it myself at some stage. But to suggest it should have official status is nonsensical, particularly given the intensive care it requires in the South which seems to have a large number of people speaking it as a first language. It may well be of cultural significance, and historical importance, but it is not necessary for communication.

With the number of people who speak Welsh as a first language compared to Irish (in NI), comparing the two is misguided.

In un-Enlightened Ireland, the issue has remained, frankly, ethnic. That is the difference.

I think the contrast between Scottish civic nationalism and Irish ethnic nationalism is over-simplistic.

The article I linked to above provided some good evidence of ethno-nationalism in Scotland.

Conversely, there is a history of civic nationalism in Ireland: the United Irishmen for example, who were closely linked to the Scottish Enlightenment

That is not to deny the obvious fact that these issues in Ireland have become bound up with an overt sectarian conflict in a way the fortunately haven't in Scotland.

Ringo,

"Should read:
Of these 18 only 6 were outside Galway, 4 in Donegal and 2 in Kerry. The other 12 were in Galway."

Does that mean the Mayo Gaeltacht is now extinct? Sad.

Beano,

Apologies I should have said Ulster boasts the second highest number of native Irish speakers.

Alternatively we'll play by your rules and exclude 3 of the counties. - Ulster comes in joint third along with Leinster and proudly boasts the lowest number of native speakers.

IJP

Thanks for the reply. I have to go right now but I'll come back to this. I will say for now that I'm in agreement with Tom Griffin. Your views on this are too simplistic, you're not looking at the whole picture.

Also I get the impression that you are keen to see Scottish nationalism in a positive light, and Irish nationalism in a negative light (ethnic unenlightened)

That maybe tells me more about your personal views and preferences than it does about the nature of nationalism

Biffo -

Does that mean the Mayo Gaeltacht is now extinct? Sad.

Not yet, but there isn't the critical mass of regular speakers left to maintain it for the next generation. I think that studies have shown that once less than 70% of the population in an area speaks Irish that it goes rapidly into decline. Thats why those 18 ED's are very important. The are the only areas where it is truly self-sustaining.

As an aside the údaras elections are coming up and every voter in the 154 Gaeltacht ED's has a vote as far as I'm aware. So you've got all these local politicians in east Galway City wandering around estates where there is a bigger non-national population than native Irish speakers trying to canvass 'as Gaeilge'.

"Is maca around today, I have a few questions to ask him about irish"

Cinnte, bím "around" gach lá (I'm here every day). You have my email.

Tom and Biffo

Actually I accept your points entirely.

To Biffo I would say:
a) frankly you would need at least a dissertation to do the topic justice, I was merely making the briefest of broad-swipe attempts to answer your query; and
b) you are quite correct that it reflects my preferences, indeed I fail to see how any objective observer could prefer ethnic political nationalism (fundamentally undemocratic and inevitably a cause of conflict) over civic nationalism (a properly democratic tradition).

Tom wisely raised the United Irishmen, who were part of the Enlightened tradition. Modern Irish Nationalism does not (as represented by its political leaders) descend from them, though. I make no excuse for expressing the view that that is unfortunate.

Maca

I did but I lost it - my mailbox was overfilled so the kind IT folks at TCD wiped the whole thing coz they said it was taking up too much space.

I was curious to find out how much you know about the old Irish names for Newtownards. Is Baile Nua correct?

we shall fight them on the beaches,on the buses and tubes, bars and common grounds, we shall never surrender!!!!

cladycowboy - at the moemnt 'fighting them in bars' is something more associated in the public mind with members of the IRA and SF ....

Very true Davros,

I'm sure there isn't a soul on this website who isn't disgusted with the incident you allude to.

However,it doesn't mean there isn't brutal fighting every 'leave' weekend in the bars around Aldershot and the like, which never makes the news..

..i'll just stick to 'We shall fight them on the beaches' bit..happy?

However,it doesn't mean there isn't brutal fighting every 'leave' weekend in the bars around Aldershot and the like, which never makes the news..

It did when I lived and worked close to an army base in England. Now I dare say if there wasn't just "brutal fighting " but a savage and horrible murder - this wasn't after all a nice neat Hollywood death where the victim gets a tidy stab , goes You got me and falls to the ground, but a prolonged and vicious beating in which an eyeball was ennucleated - ie forced from the orbital socket and left hanging - and the mans head was stamped on time and time again. If such a murder had happened in a garrison town and members of the Tory party were involved and there was a huge cover-up operation mounted with which a nationally and internationally famous politician was involved as happened in the Markets Riots and if Michael Howard had stonewalled for 2 weeks ... then it would be just as much in the public arena as the behaviour of Adams, McGuinness and even Alex Maskey has been in this case.

test

I'm English living in Scotland and I am witnessing first hand the decline of Britishness in Scotland.

I don't believe that there is a huge demand in England for seperation from the UK but the Scottish national difference in attitude to Britishness is essentially removing the option from the English of being British. I used to like the fact that when I lived in England I could support my own national team and also support the Welsh, Northern Irish, Scottish football teams. In fact most people I know even supported the Republic if they were playing a non-british team. To me that was what being British meant to the average person, not some kind of colonial feeling but wanting your british brothers to do well. Obviously this doesn't happen in Scotland where the opposing team to England is always your favourite team. I think that if you have no common feelings, no common threat then invitably it will die.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3561-1442180,00.html

"While a quarter of schoolchildren aged 14 to 16 prefer to think of themselves as English, only 12% of teachers held similar views"

The vast majority of English people like myself believe they are British first English second. I don't think that the English regarding themselves as British first English second is really the end of Britishness in England.

Very interesting Dan.
Although you say you regard yourself as British first English second have you seen any change in this over the years? Do you think many people are beginning to value their Englishness more rather than their Britishness?
Also, the attitude in Scotland, does this affect your own view of Britishness in any way?

Most English people, in my experience, are both sentimental and unthinking about the Union, treating being British and English as synonymous. There is an emotional attachment to the Union but I sense this may change. Devolution has left a deep imbalance in British constitutional arrangements, which are clearly to England’s disadvantage. The effects aren’t yet fully felt but already a student or elderly person going into a care home who lives in Northumberland is worse off than his/her equivalent across the border. Most English voters are unfamiliar with the Barnett Formula but were the tabloids to give it as negative a press as anything emanating out of Brussels I think you’d find support for the Union begin to erode.

I am English, but have lived in Ulster and Scotland before moving to the Netherlands and have spent relatively little time in my native land over the past 17 years. When I do return I’m surprised how many flags of St George I see. England fans used to cheer Scotland on, now they mock. Simon Heffer recently wrote a little noticed book arguing for the end of the Union from an English perspective (not recommended) and Boris Johnson recently made critical noises. It strikes me as an issue the Tories could run with in 2009, espec if Gordon Brown leads Labour.

"There is an emotional attachment to the Union"
Have to say, I'm yet to come across this. Maybe a sign of the fact that you're not in England much Stephen.

Here's a question, would England be better off on her own, economically or otherwise?

Better off on her own I suppose (ess above mentioned Barnett Formula)

Independance for England!

Britain - Hands Off England!

Here's a question, would England be better off on her own, economically or otherwise?

might give Manchester Utd a good excuse to send a certain Scotsman hame ;)

Everton 1 - 0 Man Utd

"Although you say you regard yourself as British first English second have you seen any change in this over the years?"

I guess when you live in Scotland when you are English inevitably you will feel more English. I don't think a single day goes by without someone mentioning my difference (normally in banter). I used to give as good as I got, but now I'm finding it annoying that I can't really feel at home here even though I am about to have children with my Scottish wife. I still feel like I'm British first as I'm English of 1/4 Welsh descent and I live in Scotland, I am a product of Britain and even if the Union dies I will be geographically British.

"Do you think many people are beginning to value their Englishness more rather than their Britishness?"

Yes, my friends down south are becoming more resentful of Scotland's special treatment and the fact that they percieve English people are somehow subsidising the Scottish parliment and Scotland's moves for independence. Some of the more right wing would like to leave the UK first, probably to save face in the light of rejection. I would say that Scotland contributes as much as it receives, if you take into account oil and the strategic importance of the nuclear submarine bases.

"Also, the attitude in Scotland, does this affect your own view of Britishness in any way?"

I live on the west coast think there is a kind of reticence to say anything positive toward almost everything; England, the Union, the NHS, the weather. This kind of over shadows thinking about anything positive Scotland gains from the Union. (I'm from the North of England and we have a similar but milder outlook toward things.). If anything I feel like I'm trying to hold my wife and I together by hoping that the UK stays together. I find I get annoyed by the fact that a lot of people in Scotland drive round with EU number plates on that say SCO not GB (including my own secondhand car) even people I know who really are pro-UK never say so because they don't want to be associated with Rangers fans and sectarianism. Nationalists are very vocal and I think as children are brought up in this environment they will inevitably become nationalist.

I have a friend who is a Celtic fan of Irish descent who has worked in England, has Welsh and English friends and thinks that the UK as it exists now is a great modern social (he can team up with the Welsh to support England's opposition) and economic union of countries - he considers himself Scottish but also British - he could never fly a union flag though (for understandable reasons) nor would he really argue that strongly for the Union because he would be seen as less Scottish if he did so. It is people like him that stay silent that will bring about the end of Britishness.


Being from Lancashire I guess I am really proud of some of what Britain achieved in terms of the industrial revolution. A lot of countries have colonial pasts of which they are not proud but Britain, aside from the mistreatment of people all round the world, brought some values to other countries like education for both sexes of which the UK shouldn't be embarrassed about. I think of the great Engineering and inventing achievements of the UK as what demonstrates what the English, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots can do together and I think it is a shame that nationalist resentments are going to end this. In contrast as far as I can see the Pub thinking in Scotland as regards history is that: Scotland was a united utopia until it was forced into slavery to England. The Scots were forced to then run the British empire and direct English brutality whilst inventing everything on the planet of worth and having the cash and credit stolen by England. I even heard an SNP politician describe today's Scots as slaves to England - I think she was right that they are slaves - but they are slaves like English, Welsh and Northern Irish people to mortgages and debt -hopefully she will be paying that off with the oil money.

Design: River Path Associates Comments: Big Blog Co Powered: Movable Type 3.15 Copyright © 2003 Sluggerotoole.com All rights reserved.