william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
I am a Loyalist. The narrative of Ulster is set out as the Protestants limiting the Catholics and the British government coming in to give the Catholics equal rights. With the British government then having to send in the army to stop the Protestants taking care of the Catholics. So British government good, Catholics victims and Protestants bad.

The reality is that the Protestants and Catholics conflict didn't exist until the British government came in. The Provisional IRA didn't really exist until the British government came in. The true of Ulster is a story of betrayal by the British government leading to the troubles, IRA campaigns, Irish civil war, Irish war of Independence and Easter Rising.

There are 3 ethnic factions in Ireland the Ulster-Scots, the Anglo-Irish and Celtic-Irish. The Ulster-Scots are normally non-Conformist Protestants, the Anglo-Irish are normally Catholic or Church of Ireland and the Celtic-Irish are normally Catholic or Church of Ireland. So from this we can see the conflict isn't between the Protestants and Catholics, it is very complex. Where Catholics could be Loyalists for ethnic reasons, where Protestant can be Republicans for political or ethnic reasons. So when people say it is a sectarian religious conflict they don't know what they are taking about.

The problems in Ireland come from political power and manipulation, geopolitics. You had the Scottish government going into Ireland because the English went into Ireland, the English went into Ireland because of internal politics within Ireland. So another stupid idea is that the Anglo-Irish and Ulster-Scots colonised Ireland. This isn't what happened at all, the Irish Kingdom's invited the English and Scottish into Ireland. The same way the Welish invited the English into Britain from Denmark. The Irish are unwilling to accept their responsibility in the fractured makeup of the island of Ireland.

Ulster's refusal to go along with the Home rule bill for a number of reasons from political opposition, economics security and loss of power lead to the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force in the 1913, and the Ulster Covenant. If it hadn't been for the out break of WW1 and the mass genocide which took place in Britain perpetrated within that 4 year period then the issues in Ireland and Ulster could well have been resolved. However the unwillingness of the Irish nationalists and Liberals in the British Parliament to accept the Ulster Covenant, and the formation of the UVF by Carson and Craig made violence increasingly likely.

After the war in which the UVF was wiped out the Liberal party and British government took its revenge upon Ulster giving 3 counties to the Republican Irish free state and calling the remaining part of Ulster Northern Ireland in a disgusting act of spite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esggToJF2f0
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
(Original post by william walker)
The reality is that the Protestants and Catholics conflict didn't exist until the British government came in. The Provisional IRA didn't really exist until the British government came in.
The Battle of the Bogside and the riots in the rest of Northern Ireland in 1969 (which were the motivation for the founding of the Provisional IRA) both happened before British troops were sent in.

The true of Ulster is a story of betrayal by the British government leading to the troubles, IRA campaigns, Irish civil war, Irish war of Independence and Easter Rising.

There are 3 ethnic factions in Ireland the Ulster-Scots, the Anglo-Irish and Celtic-Irish. The Ulster-Scots are normally non-Conformist Protestants, the Anglo-Irish are normally Catholic or Church of Ireland and the Celtic-Irish are normally Catholic or Church of Ireland. So from this we can see the conflict isn't between the Protestants and Catholics, it is very complex. Where Catholics could be Loyalists for ethnic reasons, where Protestant can be Republicans for political or ethnic reasons. So when people say it is a sectarian religious conflict they don't know what they are taking about.
While a three-way distinction is generally made by historians, this isn't quite it. Generally the distinction is instead made between the Native/Gaelic Irish, the "Old English" - those who settled in Ireland before the Reformation and so were virtually all Catholic - and the "New English" - those who settled in Ireland after the Reformation and were overwhelmingly Protestant (in both cases, not all the settlers were actually English - some of the Old English were Welsh or Norman, and a significant number of the New English were Scots). You could make a further distinction between Anglicans and non-conformists within the New English, but this was always less significant.

However, the distinctions between the Old English and the Native Irish gradually declined, until by the 18th century they were virtually indistinct.

The problems in Ireland come from political power and manipulation, geopolitics. You had the Scottish government going into Ireland because the English went into Ireland, the English went into Ireland because of internal politics within Ireland. So another stupid idea is that the Anglo-Irish and Ulster-Scots colonised Ireland. This isn't what happened at all, the Irish Kingdom's invited the English and Scottish into Ireland.
The fact that some Irish kings made alliances and deals with English and Scottish kings to advance their own interests within Ireland does not mean Ireland wasn't colonised.

Ulster's refusal to go along with the Home rule bill for a number of reasons from political opposition, economics security and loss of power lead to the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force in the 1913, and the Ulster Covenant. If it hadn't been for the out break of WW1 and the mass genocide which took place in Britain perpetrated within that 4 year period then the issues in Ireland and Ulster could well have been resolved.
It could well also have been complete and utter carnage with the Ulster Volunteers, Irish Volunteers and British Army all fighting each other.

However the unwillingness of the Irish nationalists and Liberals in the British Parliament to accept the Ulster Covenant, and the formation of the UVF by Carson and Craig made violence increasingly likely.
What's ironic is that Carson expected the Ulster Covenant to be a bluff. He was opposed to partitioning Ireland as he was to Home Rule (as he was from Dublin, not Ulster), and expected that if Unionists pushed the former, Irish nationalists and Liberals would just drop their insistence on the latter. He called it wrong.

After the war in which the UVF was wiped out the Liberal party and British government took its revenge upon Ulster giving 3 counties to the Republican Irish free state and calling the remaining part of Ulster Northern Ireland in a disgusting act of spite.
The idea that Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan would not be included in Northern Ireland in the case of partition was present before WW1, as they would have significantly weakened its unionist majority.

It was called Northern Ireland because there was initially a 'Southern Ireland' as well, in the area that was to become the Irish Free State and then the Republic of Ireland. The British government twice offered the Northern Irish government the opportunity to change the official name to 'Ulster', in 1937 and 1949, and both times the latter weren't interested.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by anarchism101)
The Battle of the Bogside and the riots in the rest of Northern Ireland in 1969 (which were the motivation for the founding of the Provisional IRA) both happened before British troops were sent in.



While a three-way distinction is generally made by historians, this isn't quite it. Generally the distinction is instead made between the Native/Gaelic Irish, the "Old English" - those who settled in Ireland before the Reformation and so were virtually all Catholic - and the "New English" - those who settled in Ireland after the Reformation and were overwhelmingly Protestant (in both cases, not all the settlers were actually English - some of the Old English were Welsh or Norman, and a significant number of the New English were Scots). You could make a further distinction between Anglicans and non-conformists within the New English, but this was always less significant.

However, the distinctions between the Old English and the Native Irish gradually declined, until by the 18th century they were virtually indistinct.



The fact that some Irish kings made alliances and deals with English and Scottish kings to advance their own interests within Ireland does not mean Ireland wasn't colonised.



It could well also have been complete and utter carnage with the Ulster Volunteers, Irish Volunteers and British Army all fighting each other.



What's ironic is that Carson expected the Ulster Covenant to be a bluff. He was opposed to partitioning Ireland as he was to Home Rule (as he was from Dublin, not Ulster), and expected that if Unionists pushed the former, Irish nationalists and Liberals would just drop their insistence on the latter. He called it wrong.



The idea that Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan would not be included in Northern Ireland in the case of partition was present before WW1, as they would have significantly weakened its unionist majority.

It was called Northern Ireland because there was initially a 'Southern Ireland' as well, in the area that was to become the Irish Free State and then the Republic of Ireland. The British government twice offered the Northern Irish government the opportunity to change the official name to 'Ulster', in 1937 and 1949, and both times the latter weren't interested.
The IRA in one form or another had been active in Ulster for decades before the "riots" happen. In reality they were target police actions aimed at the nationalist area's of Londonderry and Belfast. These actions didn't lead to the increase in support for the IRA or violence, the British government sending in troops did along with the internment of IRA member without due process or guilt being found. Even within the Protestant preeminence within the law that was asserted by the Ulster government at the time nationalists still got rights under the law. What the British government should have done was support the RUC to break the nationalist area's.

I take your point about the old and new English. However there is an important difference between the Ulster-Scottish Non-conformists and new Anglo-Irish Anglicans. One was the ruling elite of Ireland and has power within an Irish state, the other was poor and didn't have power within an Irish state. Which ever way the Anglo-Irish Anglicans went would decide the future of Ireland. Their mind was made when the British Parliament disestablished the Church of Ireland in 1877, this was the start of the problems in Ireland.

Yes it does, if the British government actively invites people from other place to live in Britain for whatever reason is that colonial. If the British government invites American troops into Britain and they never leave is that colonial? The fact is the Celtic-Irish made mistakes and the Scottish and English took advantage for it.

It would have been the UVF with the advantage in terms of assets, training and man power. They would have crushed the Irish nationalists. The British government would have attempted to stop the conflict, but just made it worse and more prolonged.

Carson was really just a figurehead, the really people behind the political and military moves were people like Craig who had economic interests to protect. These people brought Carson in and he did his role very well.

It may have been present, but it wasn't likely because of the strength of the UVF before WW1. Also there was still major support for the Union in these area's. Indeed most of Ireland as a whole support the Union at the time. Parliamentary politics made it can issue, like Scotland today.

If the British government wanted to rename the nation the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster it should have done it. It didn't need to ask anyone. The same way if the British government want to recreate the county of Cumberland it should have just done it.
0
reply
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by william walker)
After the war in which the UVF was wiped out the Liberal party and British government took its revenge upon Ulster giving 3 counties to the Republican Irish free state and calling the remaining part of Ulster Northern Ireland in a disgusting act of spite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esggToJF2f0
The Government of Ireland Act 1914 was placed on the stature books in September 1914, postponed until once the war was ended. The provisions of Ulster still had to be sorted.
Sorry, but you can't really blame the Liberals after this point much. Their final government collapsed in May 1915. Asquith only just managed to hold on in the war coalition government as PM. Carson and Craig were in the Cabinet, and in January 1913 Carson had accepted the fate of Ireland, that it would be given Home Rule and Ulster would probably be partially partitioned, and he abandoned his fellow southern unionists.
Giving up 3 counties wasn't an act of revenge. It was law, royal assent, it was going to happen since those 3 counties had Nationalist majorities.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by william walker)
The IRA in one form or another had been active in Ulster for decades before the "riots" happen.
No, they were mostly inactive for decades. They'd had two official 'campaigns' in the period between 1922 and 1969, both of which were damp squibs which had almost no effect on anything. By 1969 the IRA barely existed.

In reality they were target police actions aimed at the nationalist area's of Londonderry and Belfast.
In Belfast there was significant fighting between nationalists and loyalists as well as between nationalists and the RUC.

These actions didn't lead to the increase in support for the IRA or violence, the British government sending in troops did along with the internment of IRA member without due process or guilt being found.
Yes, these contributed significantly to IRA recruitment, but it was August 1969 that led the new Provisional IRA to begin its campaign, after years of the IRA being largely inactive.

Even within the Protestant preeminence within the law that was asserted by the Ulster government at the time nationalists still got rights under the law.
Not really. It took until April 1969 for Northern Ireland to even institute one man, one vote. The South African government cited Northern Ireland as a justification for several apartheid policies.

What the British government should have done was support the RUC to break the nationalist area's.
Why? Just because that's what you'd have wanted?

I take your point about the old and new English. However there is an important difference between the Ulster-Scottish Non-conformists and new Anglo-Irish Anglicans. One was the ruling elite of Ireland and has power within an Irish state, the other was poor and didn't have power within an Irish state.
True, Anglicans had more political power than non-conformists, but the latter still had more power than Catholics.

Which ever way the Anglo-Irish Anglicans went would decide the future of Ireland. Their mind was made when the British Parliament disestablished the Church of Ireland in 1877, this was the start of the problems in Ireland.
So there were no problems in Ireland before 1877? What about the calls for Repeal or Home Rule before then, just to start with?

Yes it does, if the British government actively invites people from other place to live in Britain for whatever reason is that colonial.
So when, according to you did the "Irish government" invite the English in? I'm also unsure whether you're talking about the post-Reformation Plantations or the original English invasions from the 12th century onwards?

If the British government invites American troops into Britain and they never leave is that colonial? The fact is the Celtic-Irish made mistakes and the Scottish and English took advantage for it.

It would have been the UVF with the advantage in terms of assets, training and man power. They would have crushed the Irish nationalists.
It's hard to know exact numbers, but the Irish Volunteers were almost certainly larger in terms of sheer manpower - probably just shy of 200,000 in comparison to the just over 100,000 of the UVF. True, after the Larne gunrunning the UVF had more in terms of weaponry (though neither had anywhere near enough to arm their entire memberships), but then again, in theory the nationalists could have pulled off something similar had it not been for the outbreak of WW1 heading off such a war for the time being.

And suppose for the sake of argument that you're right and the UVF did have the military advantage. What then? Could they really have held all of Ireland long-term, against the will of the bulk of the population?

It may have been present, but it wasn't likely because of the strength of the UVF before WW1. Also there was still major support for the Union in these area's. Indeed most of Ireland as a whole support the Union at the time.
I know there was no major support for full Irish independence at the time - the idea of partition regarding Home Rule was still present.

If the British government wanted to rename the nation the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster it should have done it. It didn't need to ask anyone.
Why would the British government want to rename Northern Ireland when the Northern Irish government itself didn't want it renamed?
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by anarchism101)
No, they were mostly inactive for decades. They'd had two official 'campaigns' in the period between 1922 and 1969, both of which were damp squibs which had almost no effect on anything. By 1969 the IRA barely existed.



In Belfast there was significant fighting between nationalists and loyalists as well as between nationalists and the RUC.



Yes, these contributed significantly to IRA recruitment, but it was August 1969 that led the new Provisional IRA to begin its campaign, after years of the IRA being largely inactive.



Not really. It took until April 1969 for Northern Ireland to even institute one man, one vote. The South African government cited Northern Ireland as a justification for several apartheid policies.



Why? Just because that's what you'd have wanted?



True, Anglicans had more political power than non-conformists, but the latter still had more power than Catholics.



So there were no problems in Ireland before 1877? What about the calls for Repeal or Home Rule before then, just to start with?



So when, according to you did the "Irish government" invite the English in? I'm also unsure whether you're talking about the post-Reformation Plantations or the original English invasions from the 12th century onwards?

If the British government invites American troops into Britain and they never leave is that colonial? The fact is the Celtic-Irish made mistakes and the Scottish and English took advantage for it.



It's hard to know exact numbers, but the Irish Volunteers were almost certainly larger in terms of sheer manpower - probably just shy of 200,000 in comparison to the just over 100,000 of the UVF. True, after the Larne gunrunning the UVF had more in terms of weaponry (though neither had anywhere near enough to arm their entire memberships), but then again, in theory the nationalists could have pulled off something similar had it not been for the outbreak of WW1 heading off such a war for the time being.

And suppose for the sake of argument that you're right and the UVF did have the military advantage. What then? Could they really have held all of Ireland long-term, against the will of the bulk of the population?



I know there was no major support for full Irish independence at the time - the idea of partition regarding Home Rule was still present.



Why would the British government want to rename Northern Ireland when the Northern Irish government itself didn't want it renamed?
They were mostly inactive, but the IRA was still their.

The RUC were loyalists for the most part.

Yes the IRA started a new campaign which wasn't going very well with the RUC, B specials and UDA forming against the IRA. The IRA would have been crushed and order restored. It was the British government which stopped the IRA being crush and then brought in support from the Irish state against the British troops.

Yes Ulster asserted basically the English Bill of Rights and penal laws against non-Protestant. It was meant to be a Protestant government for a Protestant people. However like the English Bill of Rights it gave everybody equality under the law. However the law itself was Protestant.

Yes. Also it would have worked to defeat the nationalists and IRA without the need for non-governmental groups.

At the point of Home rule in the 1910 the Catholics has more power than the non-Conformists in Ireland. The penal laws has all be removed, they had more economic power and political power throughout Ireland. The Non-conformists were the weakest group.

Opposition to something and wanting something different isn't a problem. Violence and political parties with wide support is a problem. The Anglicans were secure in their position and with the support of the Non-conformists and British state had overall domination in Ireland. With the removal of them from the British state they sort to protect their interests and flipped to supporting Irish home rule where they had the greatest amount of power.

There was no Irish government at this point, there were competing Irish kingdom's. One wanted support against the other and invited the Norman-English in to help them. From this the English took over part of Ireland and settled it. Then England was in the struggle with Scotland, so the Scottish support Ulster and sent troops, they then settled in Ulster. This is all before the reformation.

The Irish volunteers would have been the ones taking the fight to the Ulster volunteers. The Ulster volunteers would have fought to keep Ulster, not to take or hold Ireland as a whole. That is where they had the advantage in terms of man power, training and assets. Also we can't discount what may have happened in the rest of Ireland as it was still overall majority Unionist in the 1913. Once the conflict was on going there could have been a Unionist for formed in the rest of Ireland. However WW1 put an end to that possibility.

Yes two Parliament home rule one for Southern Ireland and one for Ulster was possible. It was indeed the outcome, just Ulster lost some of its territory and an Irish state was created.

Why would the British government even ask the Northern Ireland government? When part of its territory had been taken away by said British government. If the British government wanted to do it, it should just do it.
0
reply
Weirdowithnoname
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
I myself am a Loyalist living in Ulster and I agree with what you have said about the government and the Catholics against Protestants history
1
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by CescaD96)
The Government of Ireland Act 1914 was placed on the stature books in September 1914, postponed until once the war was ended. The provisions of Ulster still had to be sorted.
Sorry, but you can't really blame the Liberals after this point much. Their final government collapsed in May 1915. Asquith only just managed to hold on in the war coalition government as PM. Carson and Craig were in the Cabinet, and in January 1913 Carson had accepted the fate of Ireland, that it would be given Home Rule and Ulster would probably be partially partitioned, and he abandoned his fellow southern unionists.
Giving up 3 counties wasn't an act of revenge. It was law, royal assent, it was going to happen since those 3 counties had Nationalist majorities.
If the Liberals hadn't gone into coalition with the Irish nationalist there would have been no issue. So I blame the Liberal and British government as an institution for the whole thing and WW1. Carson was only bothered about Ulster, if the South Irish Unionists want to do their own thing, they could have done that. Carson and Craig weren't stopping them.

Ulster as a whole was Loyalist though, also the majority rule thing on a county level, but not a province level doesn't make any sense. It had never been done before. It was an act of spite.
0
reply
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by william walker)
If the Liberals hadn't gone into coalition with the Irish nationalist there would have been no issue. So I blame the Liberal and British government as an institution for the whole thing and WW1. Carson was only bothered about Ulster, if the South Irish Unionists want to do their own thing, they could have done that. Carson and Craig weren't stopping them.

Ulster as a whole was Loyalist though, also the majority rule thing on a county level, but not a province level doesn't make any sense. It had never been done before. It was an act of spite.
The Liberals and the IPP had history well before 1914; Gladstone declared it his mission to "pacify Ireland". You can't blame them in the 1910s. No Liberal leader was as even dedicated to Home Rule than Gladstone.
Besides, if the Liberals had not taken up the Home Rule crisis, the Conservatives certainly would have. There is even evidence that Sir Randolph Churchill was warming to the idea of Home Rule before the Liberals came out in full support in the 1880s.
Also, you can't say that Ulster was loyalist as a whole when near half the population was Catholic, and more than likely Nationalist. Heck, my own Scottish ancestors lived in Donegal and they were nationalist supporters and Presbyterian.
Carson was bothered about the southern unionists. He was a Dublin lawyer! Setting up Ulster resistance to Home Rule was originally a strategically staged plan. Even Bonar Law, leader of the Conservatives, agreed with Carson, who said that Ulster was the key to ensuring that Home Rule wasn't to be introduced at all in the island. It was originally a bluff, and in January 1913 when he realised that Home Rule would happen in Ireland whether he liked it or not, Carson had to abandon his fellow southern unionists to protect Ulster.

Also, I've noticed that you said there was no problems pre-1877 in Ireland. Sorry. That's rubbish.
1803: Robert Emmet rebellion.
1800-1829: The entire campaign for Catholic and Presbyterian emancipation, spearheaded by O'Connell from 1823.
1840-1845: O'Connell's call for Repeal.
1848: The Young Ireland Rebellion. Or the Battle for Widow McCormack's Cabbage Patch, whatever you prefer.
1867: The Fenian Uprising.

If those aren't problems in your mind, what really is?
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by CescaD96)
The Liberals and the IPP had history well before 1914; Gladstone declared it his mission to "pacify Ireland". You can't blame them in the 1910s. No Liberal leader was as even dedicated to Home Rule than Gladstone.
Besides, if the Liberals had not taken up the Home Rule crisis, the Conservatives certainly would have. There is even evidence that Sir Randolph Churchill was warming to the idea of Home Rule before the Liberals came out in full support in the 1880s.
Also, you can't say that Ulster was loyalist as a whole when near half the population was Catholic, and more than likely Nationalist. Heck, my own Scottish ancestors lived in Donegal and they were nationalist supporters and Presbyterian.
Carson was bothered about the southern unionists. He was a Dublin lawyer! Setting up Ulster resistance to Home Rule was originally a strategically staged plan. Even Bonar Law, leader of the Conservatives, agreed with Carson, who said that Ulster was the key to ensuring that Home Rule wasn't to be introduced at all in the island. It was originally a bluff, and in January 1913 when he realised that Home Rule would happen in Ireland whether he liked it or not, Carson had to abandon his fellow southern unionists to protect Ulster.

Also, I've noticed that you said there was no problems pre-1877 in Ireland. Sorry. That's rubbish.
1803: Robert Emmet rebellion.
1800-1829: The entire campaign for Catholic and Presbyterian emancipation, spearheaded by O'Connell from 1823.
1840-1845: O'Connell's call for Repeal.
1848: The Young Ireland Rebellion. Or the Battle for Widow McCormack's Cabbage Patch, whatever you prefer.
1867: The Fenian Uprising.

If those aren't problems in your mind, what really is?
You make good points, however I may talk about the Liberals as they when into coalition with the Irish nationalists and brought Britain into WW1. However I really blame the government as an institution.

Yeah Carson and Craig had a strategy, it wasn't working and they changed it.

I have family in Donegal, they were Unionists and 1 of them was Catholic. However they weren't Loyalists, I think you will be correct in that very few Catholics signed the Ulster Covenant, however there were Catholic Unionists.

When I say problems I mean problems that threatened Ireland's place within the British nation state. Those incidents were important and people died, however they weren't an existential threat to Britain. Like the Jacobite rebellion or the 1798 rebellion.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (118)
4.95%
Uncertainty around my education (353)
14.81%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (261)
10.95%
Lack of purpose or motivation (335)
14.06%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (108)
4.53%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (139)
5.83%
Loneliness (206)
8.64%
Financial worries (88)
3.69%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (100)
4.2%
Exposure to negative news/social media (116)
4.87%
Lack of real life entertainment (127)
5.33%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (208)
8.73%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (224)
9.4%

Watched Threads

View All