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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by indigoblue)
    Why would the Irish Republic fly the Union Jack? You seem to have this idea that the Irish should fly another country's flag, in direct contradiction of what they believe in. It would be like the White House flying the Union Jack. Pandering to Ulster Loyalists has never worked before, so why would it work with another partitionist devolved Northern Ireland?
    It is the position of Sinn Fein etc that the Irish tricolour should be flown officially in Northern Ireland to demonstrate parity of esteem.

    The Union Jack is, for example, flown in Canada and other Commonwealth countries to mark their country's history. This is even more necessary in Ireland, where it is the flag of one community. As for your suggestions that it is the flag of another country: it isn't. It was conceived as the flag of Great Britain and Ireland - all of Ireland - and that is how it has been used for most of its history.

    As for 'what they believe in' - that's exactly what I'm getting at: the Nationalist/Republican/Gaelic-Irish establishment would have to acknowledge that what they believe in is equal to what the Northern Protestants believe in, and that there are two traditions within Ireland.

    I agree, it will never work. But it would be the sort of compromises that would have to be made to give a united Ireland a hope in hell of coming about.

    (Original post by indigoblue)
    Which is what Protestants relied on from day one?
    Not so far as I can see.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It is the position of Sinn Fein etc that the Irish tricolour should be flown officially in Northern Ireland to demonstrate parity of esteem.

    The Union Jack is, for example, flown in Canada and other Commonwealth countries to mark their country's history. This is even more necessary in Ireland, where it is the flag of one community. As for your suggestions that it is the flag of another country: it isn't. It was conceived as the flag of Great Britain and Ireland - all of Ireland - and that is how it has been used for most of its history.

    As for 'what they believe in' - that's exactly what I'm getting at: the Nationalist/Republican/Gaelic-Irish establishment would have to acknowledge that what they believe in is equal to what the Northern Protestants believe in, and that there are two traditions within Ireland.

    I agree, it will never work. But it would be the sort of compromises that would have to be made to give a united Ireland a hope in hell of coming about.



    Not so far as I can see.
    From day one, didn't Protestants form an artificial state where they would be the majority. They would outnumber Catholics and slowly force Catholics out of their borders? Thats ethno-nationalism in my books.

    Firstly, Ireland isn't a part of the commonwealth, secondly, how would you like to see the Irish flag flown over Westminster Abbey?

    Ulster Loyalists don't want a united Ireland, even one in which they are equal. Even by taking the steps to represent Ulster Loyalists as you say, their traditions would be obsolete. It would be a death of natural causes. Ulster Loyalism relies solely on the absence of a united Ireland
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    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.
    Huh? You're saying it's all the fault of the English but then you talk about Scottish people being placed on plantations. So unless you're suggesting that these Scottish people were forcibly moved there purely by the English government with absolutely no involvement from any government representing Scotland.

    Now I'm not saying these acts were right, but to place the blame purely on the English is just incorrect.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    *headdesk*


    028 80 80 80 80
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Huh? You're saying it's all the fault of the English but then you talk about Scottish people being placed on plantations. So unless you're suggesting that these Scottish people were forcibly moved there purely by the English government with absolutely no involvement from any government representing Scotland.

    Now I'm not saying these acts were right, but to place the blame purely on the English is just incorrect.
    Scotland was politically bound to England after the Treaty of Union was passed in 1706, which led to the creation of Great Britain. Prior to this, close ties were present between Scotland and England with strong familial connections in the royal family. For this reason, it is not incorrect to refer to England and Scotland as if they were inextricably linked.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It wasn't though - it was a part of the UK. It had a few local institutions, such as the Irish Lieutenancy, but nothing of any real note.
    For once, there's really little for me to comment on in your posts because we seem to be largely in agreement at the moment, though of course we still differ on the idea of a United Ireland anyway.

    However, this bit, I find wrong. Ireland was part of the UK, this is true. But like Scotland it had separate borders and was recognised as a political whole at the time within the UK, much like Scotland, NI, Wales and England are today. The IPP was a party of the entire of Ireland, not just the South, as were all the other Irish political parties formed at that time.

    Oh, and on your arguments bout the Union Jack, I actually find those to be perfectly reasonable. I would also maintain that for a fair few generations, at least, the law on dual citizenship would have to remain. However, as much as the Unionists would argue otherwise, Northern Irish culture is closer to Irish culture than it is to British, ultimately. Ullans is a Gaelic language, for instance. Our folk-tales are all Irish in origin and they even use legendary Irish heroes in their propaganda. I find it utterly ironic that both the South and the North have used Cú Chulainn for conflicting aims. That said, our culture is sufficiently different to Irish culture to mean it will take a long time to integrate the North with the South fully.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Scotland was politically bound to England after the Treaty of Union was passed in 1706, which led to the creation of Great Britain. Prior to this, close ties were present between Scotland and England with strong familial connections in the royal family. For this reason, it is not incorrect to refer to England and Scotland as if they were inextricably linked.
    Yes that's right. England and Scotland were linked as you say. So it's not right to blame just the English as it was a joint venture between both England and Scotland.

    It seems to me that sometimes England is almost treated like a scapegoat. The part England played in all of this is stressed, and the part that Scotland and Wales played is ignored. It's the same with British colonialism. People seem to think it was England going round conquering all this land and that Scotland and Wales had nothing to do with it. But in reality all of Great Britain (and for a time Ireland as well) was responsible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Yes that's right. England and Scotland were linked as you say. So it's not right to blame just the English as it was a joint venture between both England and Scotland.

    It seems to me that sometimes England is almost treated like a scapegoat. The part England played in all of this is stressed, and the part that Scotland and Wales played is ignored. It's the same with British colonialism. People seem to think it was England going round conquering all this land and that Scotland and Wales had nothing to do with it. But in reality all of Great Britain (and for a time Ireland as well) was responsible.
    That's because the ruling component of Great Britain is England - it's not a case of Wales and Scotland being complicit in British imperialist ventures, it's more that they had no choice either way. :curious:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=L i b]Have they ever managed that? What exactly have they promised? A devolved Northern Ireland within Ireland? Equality of cultural symbols? Flying the Union Jack on Leinster House?

    what is promissed is a new ireland, not simply giving the six counties to the free state. but an actual complete overhaul of the system where protestants will have a say in the changes to the system.


    Just look at the decline in the number of Protestants in the south - I suspect the two are interlinked rather than a community being somehow persuaded.

    I wouldnt completely agree as the population of ireland is still growing from the devastation the famine caused, and due to more traditional views on contraception and family sizes in the catholic community, the catholic community is seeing a larger rise. as can be seen in the six counties in recent years - you wil most defently quote me once again for ethno-nationalsim here.
    There is then the case of protestants marrying into the catholic community. in most counties there were insufficent Protestants to enable most Protestants to realistically marry another Protestant, so most married Catholics. Until recently, the Roman Catholic church had a rule that the children of mixed-marriages had to be brought up Catholic. Therefore, in Catholic-Protestant marriages the Protestant faith would die out after one generation. This is the main cause of the constantly declining Protestant populationsince 1926.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    That's because the ruling component of Great Britain is England - it's not a case of Wales and Scotland being complicit in British imperialist ventures, it's more that they had no choice either way. :curious:
    England is not the ruling component of Great Britain. Since the act of union England (including Wales as it was part of the kingdom of England) and Scotland were united under one government. This government represented all of Great Britain. True England has the majority of the population but that doesn't automatically make them totally responsible for everything. I'm sure many acts of colonialism had strong support in Scotland and Wales as well as England.

    In reference to the plantations of Ireland, this took place before the act of union. So in fact the government of Scotland had agreed to it and were not forced to by the English.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    That's because the ruling component of Great Britain is England
    That's just nasty, bigoted nonsense. "England" doesn't rule anything.

    it's not a case of Wales and Scotland being complicit in British imperialist ventures
    Rubbish. The Scots, at the very least, have always been at the forefront of British Imperialism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's just nasty, bigoted nonsense. "England" doesn't rule anything.



    Rubbish. The Scots, at the very least, have always been at the forefront of British Imperialism.
    Then why has there always been a strong nationalist campaign by the Scots for an independent Scotland? Many Scots resent being denied complete autonomy, and rather than supporting the English in their subjugation of other countires, would be more concerned with securing their own independence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Then why has there always been a strong nationalist campaign by the Scots for an independent Scotland?
    There hasn't. Moreover, it is because they are nationalists - not because of what the British government does. It's an ideology, and a marginal one at that.

    Many Scots resent being denied complete autonomy, and rather than supporting the English in their subjugation of other countires, would be more concerned with securing their own independence.
    Which of course explains why the Scottish nationalist movement only really began in the 1960s... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    There hasn't. Moreover, it is because they are nationalists - not because of what the British government does. It's an ideology, and a marginal one at that.


    Which of course explains why the Scottish nationalist movement only really began in the 1960s... :rolleyes:
    1) The SNP are the majority party in Scotland - doesn't this refute your claim that the nationalist cause is marginal?:rolleyes:

    2) And What are you trying to say?

    Many Scottish people strongly opposed the Treaty of Union when it was passed in 1706 - are you referring to the 1960s because this is when the modern Troubles flared up in Ireland?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    1) The SNP are the majority party in Scotland - doesn't this refute your claim that the nationalist cause is marginal?:rolleyes:
    No, because a good portion, if not a majority, of people who vote SNP do want Scottish independence. Indeed, that's the major thing that devolution has caused: a rift between nationalism and the SNP, which is now being used as a centrist political alternative to Labour.

    2) And What are you trying to say?
    That you've been spouting a great deal of crap in this thread on a subject you clearly know little about.

    Many Scottish people strongly opposed the Treaty of Union when it was passed in 1706 - are you referring to the 1960s because this is when the modern Troubles flared up in Ireland?
    No, I am referring to the 1960s because that was when a Nationalist movement in Scotland emerged instead of being a couple of people meeting in dark room in Glasgow who were, even then, in most cases extreme federalists rather than separatists.

    1706 is far from relevant here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, because a good portion, if not a majority, of people who vote SNP do want Scottish independence. Indeed, that's the major thing that devolution has caused: a rift between nationalism and the SNP, which is now being used as a centrist political alternative to Labour.



    That you've been spouting a great deal of crap in this thread on a subject you clearly know little about.



    No, I am referring to the 1960s because that was when a Nationalist movement in Scotland emerged instead of being a couple of people meeting in dark room in Glasgow who were, even then, in most cases extreme federalists rather than separatists.

    1706 is far from relevant here.
    This has diverted from the original point, which was the historic struggle for a united Ireland. I merely mentioned Scotland in relation to the Scottish farmers placed on plantations in Northern Ireland. This was secondary to my point that the problems present in Ireland were almost exclusively caused by the English.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    This was secondary to my point that the problems present in Ireland were almost exclusively caused by the English.
    Which, of course, they weren't. This is a United Kingdom. There were those who worked hard to defend the Union (and even to suppress the Catholic population in Ireland) from all parts of Great Britain and Ireland. Scapegoating the English just smacks of racism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Which, of course, they weren't. This is a United Kingdom. There were those who worked hard to defend the Union (and even to suppress the Catholic population in Ireland) from all parts of Great Britain and Ireland. Scapegoating the English just smacks of racism.
    This is ridiculous. Blaming the English isn't racist, it's factual.
    I think you are immune to historical nuances.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    This is ridiculous. Blaming the English isn't racist, it's factual.
    I think you are immune to historical nuances.
    I think you are immune to historical fact. It's an utter load of scapegoating garbage, and you've yet to produce one single fact to back up this ludicrous accusation against a fairly arbitrary group of people.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    This is ridiculous. Blaming the English isn't racist, it's factual.
    I think you are immune to historical nuances.
    (Original post by L i b)
    I think you are immune to historical fact. It's an utter load of scapegoating garbage, and you've yet to produce one single fact to back up this ludicrous accusation against a fairly arbitrary group of people.
    Oh, hush, the pair of you, you're both wrong. The Scottish were planted in Ireland, though most heavily in Ulster, especially in Down and Antrim, at the behest of the then British government, which at the time, was predominantly English. Furthermore, the lords in Ireland were predomiantly English who often stayed away from their lands in Ireland.

    Yes, utterly blaming the English is racist, though I don't think that's the actual term as the English are not a race, but it's not far from the truth. Like any ruling country, which England was, it's citizens had the access to the most money, the most land and the most influence, so they more often than not decided the fate of the Empire and the countries affected by the Empire.

    I personally can't blame the Scots for taking the chance to rid themselves of second and third sons, etc. by sending them to Ireland for free land that was taken from the Irish by the English-led British conquerors, etc. I can blame the English Lords for taking the land away and deciding who can and can't have it. I can and will blame Cromwell for treating the Irish like dogs and slaves, etc.

    No, the English are not fully to blame but they are the most at fault.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.