Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Thanks. I do try.

    From the 1920s perspective, I'd say definitely. With hindsight, things become less clear. Not to play down the Civil War, but it wasn't as bad as it could have been by a long shot. From what I can find in terms of numbers, the Anti-Treaty forces numbered somewhere in the vague region of 15,000. Keep in mind that the Ulster Volunteers that were assembled before the WWI numbered 100,000 - with people being eventually turned away.

    Like I say though, hindsight also matters. In reality, the Troubles weren't as predictable as the Civil War, and could probably have been averted if the Northern Ireland Parliament behaved a bit better to their minority population, as the British Government had guaranteed (as such, the oversight of the latter is at fault too - although admittedly the Parliament was suspended eventually)
    This is true, but we are arguing with the joy of hindsight. To be perfectly honest, if the British government really thought people like Collins and de Valera would let the North go without so much as a fight then I think they were blinding themselves to reality. Collins may have looked more long term, but he did use the IRA to attack the North in an effort to destablise it. De Valera, on the other hand, favoured a United Ireland or no Ireland, as it were, and as such, well, he went and started the Civil War.

    In the end, though, the Ulster Unionists didn't even get what they set out to do. They didn't stop Ireland getting HR, they didn't even manage to protect the whole of Ulster and they actually got HR themselves. The difference with their HR was that it was run by Protestants, not Catholics. The British government should have realised the Unionists never cared about being separated from the UK by HR, but feared, unfairly, discrimination from Catholics in return for what they had been doing for centuries.


    (Original post by L i b)
    Things get a bit trickier there. The Liberals were still Unionists, albeit Home Rule Unionists, as they are today. I can certainly see your point, but I can also see a difference between a party that actually supports separation and one that is willing to entertain it if it is the will of a certain area.

    Save for the conflict caused and threatened, do you think Southern Ireland would be independent?
    The IPP were also Unionist, in that they never wanted to leave the UK, they just wanted to have control over the domestic policies. Hardly an unfair demand? It was only due to the Liberals pandering to the Unionists, and their Tory allies, by shelving the HR bills over and over that the Irish felt they had to do something. This naturally led to the Easter Rising. The British government have only themselves to blame for it all. They didn't solve the issue quickly enough and allowed resentment to build until the Irisih would settle for nothing less than full independence, something that they, and my fellow Nationalists, still demand today.

    As for the latter question, I am about to lose some of my Nationalist points here. Whilst I do, ultimately, want an independent United Ireland, I want more for a United Ireland and I would happily be in the Union if Ireland was a single, cohesive whole again. As it stands, that is not possible, so I want unification with Ireland and independence from Britain.


    (Original post by L i b)
    I can have it both ways!

    When partition happened, it was essentially local government reform carried out the British Parliament. It was not crafting the borders of states - although I suppose the possibility of Irish independence was certainly part of the considerations. In theory at least, it was no different to the separation of Ayrshire!
    It was different, though, because the North is part of a bigger whole: Ulster. You use Unionist terminology, which is fair enough, and call Northern Ireland Ulster, but it's not. It is 6 out of 9 counties of Ulster. The majority of Ultonians wanted and want a United Ireland. The Border Commission did not take into account the feelings of the people of Derry, Fermanagh or Tyrone, when they really should have. Ulster was arbitrarily split, even you must admit that. Why listen to the demands of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal but not Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry? Ultimately because they wanted NI to succeed and it could not without those three. If Collins had lived, he would've seen to it that NI compised of two counties: Down and Antrim, the only two counties to this day where there is a definitive Unionist majority.

    If they are going to break it down, Ulster should've been treated as a whole. Hell, they should have been given their own plebicite, as should the other three provinces of Ireland.

    No matter how you swing it, given the context at the time, the partition was illegal and undemocratic.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    But why limit that right to the arbitrary borders of the constituent countries? What if the majority of Londoners wanted London to become an independent city state? Why don't they have that right? After all that covers more people than Northern Ireland.
    They certainly should have independence, if they elect to declare it. I see no ethical reason not to, if they can support themselves.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Why? And why aren't the Cornish given this 'right'? Or the Yorkshiremen? Or me, as a Strathclydean?
    Again- they all deserve said "right", so long as the majority decide in favour of said course of action.

    What makes Northern Ireland somewhat different is that it's not just an isolated minority of loons crying for it.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Are you then saying that counties are a basic unit of government in the UK? Does, say, Lincolnshire have the right to become part of Denmark if its citizens so desire?

    Indeed, as a result of local government reform, the six traditional counties don't even exist in the eyes of the state any more. It has been this way since 1972, I believe.
    You misunderstand - I'm arguing in favour of Self-Determination as a principle- past that, what the people decide to do with themselves is their own business. They're entitled to elect for Independence, certainly- or, indeed, they could elect to join another country if both parties would agree to it.

    Local Government Reform simply changes administrative districts- in no way does it change the people living within the borders. You could declare Scotland to be nothing more than an extension of Cumbria if you like- the Scots would be unlikely to consider themselves "Cumbrian" by virtue of Government decree.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AirRaven)
    Again- they all deserve said "right", so long as the majority decide in favour of said course of action.

    What makes Northern Ireland somewhat different is that it's not just an isolated minority of loons crying for it.
    Hold on - I live on a small, private road with a a couple of houses located off it. Were I to tell these people that they wouldn't have to pay council tax any more if we seceded, I'm sure they'd happily join in.

    Are you saying that's perfectly legitimate?

    You do realise that allowing this, even if not permitted on the ridiculously small scale I outline above, would instantly lead to the collapse of virtually every state on earth and enormous global instability, don't you?

    Local Government Reform simply changes administrative districts- in no way does it change the people living within the borders. You could declare Scotland to be nothing more than an extension of Cumbria if you like- the Scots would be unlikely to consider themselves "Cumbrian" by virtue of Government decree.
    Well, technically, Strathclyde is historically Cumbrian - Cumbria was the name given to this area when it was partially ruled, as a sort of pseudo-principality of the Kingdom of Scotland.

    But yes, it does change the people. People are only 'Scottish' because there was once a Scottish kingdom which dominated them by force. People only identify with being from Lincolnshire because someone decided to make Lincolnshire a county.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    The IPP were also Unionist, in that they never wanted to leave the UK, they just wanted to have control over the domestic policies. Hardly an unfair demand? It was only due to the Liberals pandering to the Unionists, and their Tory allies, by shelving the HR bills over and over that the Irish felt they had to do something. This naturally led to the Easter Rising. The British government have only themselves to blame for it all. They didn't solve the issue quickly enough and allowed resentment to build until the Irisih would settle for nothing less than full independence, something that they, and my fellow Nationalists, still demand today.
    Shelving bills over and over again? there were three serious attempts at Home Rule, namely '86, '93 and '14. '86 failed because it was a fairly poor bill and was drafted in ways that alienated not only the Tories but members of the Liberal government aswell, the '93 bill was defeated by a top heavy Tory house of lords. Both bills also had serious flaws in the way they were drawn up and how Gladstone attempted to create them without even consulting the Irish parties or certain members of his government, which this kind of attitude it was inevitable they'd fail.

    Finally in '14 we managed to pass a bill thanks mainly to having broken the power of the House of Lords, WW1, which was a pretty big deal halted the passage of the bill. If the Irish had been content to wait it out and considering there was a massive war going on, it's not such an unreasonable demand then in '19 or '20 we'd have passed the bill and we'd have seen a devolved united Ireland within the UK. Unfortunately they didn't and we had the Easter Rebellion.

    We (the British) cocked up majorly over the Easter Rebellion and rather than dealing with it sensibly, ending up making martyrs out the leaders of it and inflaming Irish nationalism far beyond what it was before. In many ways our reaction to the rebellion was what lead to an independent Ireland, so we have only ourselves to blame.

    I'm a massive Unionist and would dearly have liked to have seen Ireland remain in the Union, but the resulting split between us wasn't the result of us Brits just delaying and delaying giving you any power, it was the result of power struggles within the UK, stupid reactions to the Easter Rebellion and the worldwide calamity that was WW1.

    I'm rather against Home Rule for the Scots and the Welsh, as the nationalists are just hijacking it and using English taxes to fund various projects that are gaining them prestige, while similtaneously attacking the United Kingdom, which is obscene. But I'd have supported it vehemently for the Irish had I been alive at this time, even if deep down in my guts I feel De Valera would have hijacked it as a vehicle for Irish independence eventually.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't. Gosh that was easy :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by impervious)
    Because our teddy bear is missing its head.
    Aww! That's definitely one argument that could change my mind :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I live in the border county of Fermanagh and to be honest I don't think a lot of people here want a United Ireland.
    Ireland's already a sunken ship economically - yes, the UK isn't much better but in the current economic state i'd say most southerners would oppose a United Ireland due to the fact that they get an excellent exchange rate in Northern Ireland.
    Southern Ireland is so different to Northern Ireland it would take years to change and implement schooling, taxes etc and there would be a lot of protesting.
    For the person who said UDA/UFF are stone cold killers, what about the Omagh or Enniskillen Bomb? The IRA didn't even care if they killed their own people for a United Ireland. I take the stance that both sides are terrorists and are as bad as the other.
    Northern Ireland really still isn't at peace, so why ignite pure and utter violence again with a United Ireland?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    So that means they should be able to rule over the people who actually live in the region? What if the majority of the people in Great Britain wanted to turn Scotland into a dumping ground? Just because most people on the island want one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they should get it.
    The people of scotland would be hugely against that idea. However the ppl of northern ireland on the issue of reunification would be split. Therefore there will be actual support from the people who it affects most.

    Anyways population trends and voting patterns, is pointing to a mojority support of a united ireland in the coming decades. However the Democratic Unionist Party are already thinking up excuses of denying any referendum on the issue.

    The greatest example of the changing tide can be seen in the european elections with Sinn Feins Bairbre de Brún topping the poll in the Six Counties, with 126,814 votes and was the only candidate to reach the quota on the first count.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LALA LAND)
    Anyways population trends and voting patterns, is pointing to a mojority support of a united ireland in the coming decades. However the Democratic Unionist Party are already thinking up excuses of denying any referendum on the issue.
    I think I've pointed out in this thread how democratic means cannot be used to demark the boundaries of states or other polities. Indeed, democratic theory - particularly historically - has always been firmly against secessionism - the US Civil War was justified (by the North) on the basis of democratic theory.

    Anyway, the Nationalist hope for out-birthing the Protestants really sweeps their Nationalism into new and yet more vile territory: ethno-nationalism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because I love Ireland
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachlala14)
    I live in the border county of Fermanagh and to be honest I don't think a lot of people here want a United Ireland.
    Well this changes from town to town, doesn't it? Go to Rosslea or 'skea and you'll get a different answer (promise).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cupcakee)
    Because I love Ireland
    You're not Irish, are you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sron)
    You're not Irish, are you?
    No, well only partly my Grandad is
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland and consequently, should belong to the Republic. Partition only brought continued resentment and discontent. England is the cause of all the sectarian problems in Ireland, beginning when Scottish and English people were placed on the plantations as part of its 'divide and conquer' strategy for subjugating the Irish.
    However, I doubt many modern Irish people from the Republic would welcome Northern Ireland given its long history of violence and profound religious difficulties.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cupcakee)
    No, well only partly my Grandad is
    I could tell. You lack that pang of self-loathing all the Irish seem to possess.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i would like ireland to get back what was their's in the first place! but to all nationalists, they still believe that ireland is one country, tbh so do i!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sron)
    I could tell. You lack that pang of self-loathing all the Irish seem to possess.
    Oh dear :eek:
    Why why ? The irish seem so cheerful :yes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because we English don't care about having Northern Ireland

    So the Irish should have it back
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikki-77)
    i would like ireland to get back what was their's in the first place! but to all nationalists, they still believe that ireland is one country, tbh so do i!
    Using that kind of philosophy the English should give England back to the Welsh and good deal of the Scottish population of the Western Isles should return to Ireland.

    Furthermore Northern Ireland was never part of the Republic of Ireland, never has been. So it was never theres to begin it, it was only part of the Free State because of the way the Free State was created and even then only for a matter of days on paper only.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    Using that kind of philosophy the English should give England back to the Welsh and good deal of the Scottish population of the Western Isles should return to Ireland.

    Furthermore Northern Ireland was never part of the Republic of Ireland, never has been. So it was never theres to begin it, it was only part of the Free State because of the way the Free State was created and even then only for a matter of days on paper only.
    i dont care, ireland is ireland, end of. :cool:
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.