Unionism - Page 6 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, aaid said:

I absolutely understand what caused partition and why partition in the treaty caused the Irish Civil War.   I also know the extent to which the Civil War shaped Irish Politics for the best part of the following 100 years  

if you knew anything about the Irish Civil War then you’d know that it was between the pro and anti-treaty forces of the IRA who a year or so earlier had been fighting together against British forces.   Nothing to do with Catholics and Protestants or Unionists and Nationalists, it was Irish (largely) Catholic Nationalists fighting each other. 

Michael Collins is reported as saying that when he signed the treaty he’d signed his death warrant as he knew that it would not be accepted by every one.   

Why was catholic nationalists fighting against each other? 

Please dont say because of partition because that doesnt get to the root cause. They fought because a large section of their population in the north wanted to be british and they were divided on wether to partition the country and accept this partition long term. 

If there was no british/unionist group in the north wanting to be british then do you think partition would have happened and would there have still been a civil war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

22 minutes ago, aaid said:

I absolutely understand what caused partition and why partition in the treaty caused the Irish Civil War.   I also know the extent to which the Civil War shaped Irish Politics for the best part of the following 100 years  

if you knew anything about the Irish Civil War then you’d know that it was between the pro and anti-treaty forces of the IRA who a year or so earlier had been fighting together against British forces.   Nothing to do with Catholics and Protestants or Unionists and Nationalists, it was Irish (largely) Catholic Nationalists fighting each other. 

Michael Collins is reported as saying that when he signed the treaty he’d signed his death warrant as he knew that it would not be accepted by every one.   

It seems to me that alot of nationalists on here are trying to compare ourselves to ireland and other countries that have gained independence from britain. They are also refusing to look at the root cause of why we have a unionist population in scotland. Its a simple fact that we produce british ppl who identify as british. If we dont learn to understand these facts and stop thinking we are like ireland looking to gain our independence from the brits then maybe we can address the problem as opposed to burying our heads in the sand and deluding ourselves that we are home and dry after winning a slim majority in a referendum. Scotlands a divided country and its going to end up swinging between the union and independence which is not what i want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Why was catholic nationalists fighting against each other? 

Please dont say because of partition because that doesnt get to the root cause. They fought because a large section of their population in the north wanted to be british and they were divided on wether to partition the country and accept this partition long term. 

If there was no british/unionist group in the north wanting to be british then do you think partition would have happened and would there have still been a civil war?

There’s a lot wrong in what you say here.  Here’s a summary though.  

in 1918, Sinn Fein won the Irish part of the UK General Election, rather than taking their seats in WM they formed the first Dail in Dublin and declared an Irish Republic - for the whole Island.  

From 1919 to 1921, the (old) IRA was at war with the British forces across the Island.  

In 1921 there was a truce and treaty negotiations took place.

The terms of the treaty made it clear that Ireland would be partioned, Collins knew though that it was the best deal he could get and that if he didn’t accept the IRA did not have the resources to continue the war of independence long term.

Collins and his supporters thought that while it wasn’t a perfect deal, it was a startling point and in fact Collins continued an underground guerilla campaign against NI post partition.   Others could not accept that the treaty meant the end of the Irish Republic they’d been fighting for.   Given that the personalities at the top on both sides had been close comrades and friends, that made the whole thing more personal and bitter.   Think Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon but with guns and bombs and prosecuted by people who had grown used to killing people.

The anti-Treaty forces wouldn’t stop fighting the remaining British forces on the island and so the pro-Treaty forces, the now Irish Government - were told by the British that unless they stopped the Anti-treaty forces, the British Army would do so, and that was the start of the Irish Civil War (1922-23).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

It seems to me that alot of nationalists on here are trying to compare ourselves to ireland and other countries that have gained independence from britain. They are also refusing to look at the root cause of why we have a unionist population in scotland. Its a simple fact that we produce british ppl who identify as british. If we dont learn to understand these facts and stop thinking we are like ireland looking to gain our independence from the brits then maybe we can address the problem as opposed to burying our heads in the sand and deluding ourselves that we are home and dry after winning a slim majority in a referendum. Scotlands a divided country and its going to end up swinging between the union and independence which is not what i want. 

No-one is comparing Scotland to Ireland, what people are saying is that partition is a very bad thing and makes things worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I have already answered your totally irrelevant question - irrelevant as we ae being balloted for independence for Scotland not just independence for here and there or most parts apart from a bit near the border or a bit where you throw a dart at a map and where it lands a border goes up.

You keep harping on about unionism and I have explained to you before it is a dying breed. The biggest unionist party - the Tories were last the biggest party in Scotland over 60 years ago!! Polls back in the late 1970s had support for the union in Scotland at 79% whereas today that number has shrunk to around 45%. The last time Scotland had a unionist party in control at Holyrood is well over a decade ago. Unionism is shrinking in Scotland not growing.

To address your questions:-

1. Yes I do think it is over. You seem to be thinking because we are here again (eight years after last vote) that the same will happen with a Yes vote. It won't for a few reasons. The chief reason being pro-independence parties have control at Holyrood. Pro-independence voters are generally smart enough to realise the first few years will be tough but heck the last few years have been uber-tough within this union. Another reason being Scotland would be back in the hands of Scots - as is generally the way with 90% of countries around the world.

2. No need to answer as I answered yes.

3. Yes we are like other countries gaining independence. There have been several countries in the last 50 to 100 years whose countries had people seen as British subjects but that did not cause issues as we have seen with India and Australia to name but a few. Those uber Brits that live in an independent country will diminish further perhaps with some relocating to England or Wales if the union means that much to them and Scotland (if they rejoin the EU) will open its borders to EU citizens looking to settle here plus it would not surprise me at all that English and Welsh people who are attracted to the idea of independence may very well move here too.

4. You would be daft if you think it will be an instant success. It will be tough but unionism will not get any boost from this as Westminster will show themselves up for what they really are by making unreasonable demands. The soft Yessers will be steeled into more hard Yessers when they see the true nastiness of unionism at work during the interim negotiations on the split of the UK. I would say this answers your number 5 too. But on your last comment as I said earlier no way would unionism swell when people see the unionists for how cunty they will be in the interim making unreasonable demands, digging their heels in on the most trivial things and hoping to kybosh independence before it has started. No way Scots who voted Yes will vote for a unionist party when they see how unionists work.

Lol you would make a good politician. You havent answered the question. You just keep saying that we are voting on a whole scotland. 

I asked the simple question of would you rather never having independence or an indy scotland with a slight border change but with a secure future?

Simply burying your head in the sand and stubbornly repeating that its irrelevant is not answering the question. Your avoiding it because you dont like the answer that you would accept the first option of no independence ever. 

Are you willing to accept no independence ever?

As with question 3. How can you possible think that australia or india produce homegrown citizens who feel british. Being a british subject is completely different to the british identity that native scots, englush and welsh have.Seriously if you think that australia naturally produces ppl who view themselves as british then you are completely incorrect. They may understand that they originate from britain but in no way do australian born and bred ppl view themselves as british unless they have british parents or grandparents. India probably has a tiny population of white settlers who still view themselves as brits but the idigenous population do not naturally produce ppl who view themselves as british. 

Is there any other ppl in here who have this view? I would like to hear it because its news to me.

British ppl come from britain. No other country in the world has indigenous ppl that view themselves as british unless they move here. It would be like mexicans viewing themselves as british. 

What has given you the impression that australia or india produces british ppl?

As for questions 1, 4 and 5 you and most in here are burying your head in the sand. If its not an instant success then unionism can easily have a resurgence and i guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. The polls clearly show unionism is alive otherwise we would have a clear majority for indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, aaid said:

There’s a lot wrong in what you say here.  Here’s a summary though.  

in 1918, Sinn Fein won the Irish part of the UK General Election, rather than taking their seats in WM they formed the first Dail in Dublin and declared an Irish Republic - for the whole Island.  

From 1919 to 1921, the (old) IRA was at war with the British forces across the Island.  

In 1921 there was a truce and treaty negotiations took place.

The terms of the treaty made it clear that Ireland would be partioned, Collins knew though that it was the best deal he could get and that if he didn’t accept the IRA did not have the resources to continue the war of independence long term.

Collins and his supporters thought that while it wasn’t a perfect deal, it was a startling point and in fact Collins continued an underground guerilla campaign against NI post partition.   Others could not accept that the treaty meant the end of the Irish Republic they’d been fighting for.   Given that the personalities at the top on both sides had been close comrades and friends, that made the whole thing more personal and bitter.   Think Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon but with guns and bombs and prosecuted by people who had grown used to killing people.

The anti-Treaty forces wouldn’t stop fighting the remaining British forces on the island and so the pro-Treaty forces, the now Irish Government - were told by the British that unless they stopped the Anti-treaty forces, the British Army would do so, and that was the start of the Irish Civil War (1922-23).

I am fully aware of the history of ireland and the idea that you think i am not is arrogant. also it still doesnt get down to the root cause of why they were fighting and why partition happened.

Like craig you will stubbornly refuse to answer a simple question. 

Would there have been partition and civil war if there wasnt a large pro british protestant minority in ireland?

If you can answer that then you will get to the root cause of partition and why ireland is nearly always in a state of civil war and has been for hundreds of years.

Edited by mccaughey85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Lol you would make a good politician. You havent answered the question. You just keep saying that we are voting on a whole scotland. 

I asked the simple question of would you rather never having independence or an indy scotland with a slight border change but with a secure future?

Simply burying your head in the sand and stubbornly repeating that its irrelevant is not answering the question. Your avoiding it because you dont like the answer that you would accept the first option of no independence ever. 

Are you willing to accept no independence ever?

As with question 3. How can you possible think that australia or india produce homegrown citizens who feel british. Being a british subject is completely different to the british identity that native scots, englush and welsh have.Seriously if you think that australia naturally produces ppl who view themselves as british then you are completely incorrect. They may understand that they originate from britain but in no way do australian born and bred ppl view themselves as british unless they have british parents or grandparents. India probably has a tiny population of white settlers who still view themselves as brits but the idigenous population do not naturally produce ppl who view themselves as british. 

Is there any other ppl in here who have this view? I would like to hear it because its news to me.

British ppl come from britain. No other country in the world has indigenous ppl that view themselves as british unless they move here. It would be like mexicans viewing themselves as british. 

What has given you the impression that australia or india produces british ppl?

As for questions 1, 4 and 5 you and most in here are burying your head in the sand. If its not an instant success then unionism can easily have a resurgence and i guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. The polls clearly show unionism is alive otherwise we would have a clear majority for indy.

I answered the meaningless question many posts ago.

Prior to independence and breaking of British rule they may not have been British people per se but they were British indoctrined subjects as in brain-washed to thing the Empire as it was then was all absorbing. Indians stood up for themselves and obtained independence despite Churchill seeking to starve Indians into submission to remain. Australia had plenty of British immigrants living out there and even more today but you see no clamber whatsoever to fall back under British rule. And yes many in Australia (now second or third generation) have British roots but they do not crave British rule.

You speak of indigenous Brits as if they have a sovereign-right to Scotland - they do not. Scotland was independent long before unionism was even thought of. 

As for me burying my head in the sand no I think not. I have given you the pure evidence that unionism is on the decline in Scotland. From 79% pro-unionist in 1979 to 45% pro-unionists I'd say in just over 40 years that is a marked dip and it is only going southwards as recent election results show. You admit unionists will be nasty during negotiations on the divorce settlement and people will see that. They won't be enamoured (far from it) with unionist attitude and ill will to such a degree it will harm unionism even more. 

Now can you give me evidence for your belief that unionism will surge? It has not surged in 50 years so see no reason for that changing when Scots see how nasty they will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I answered the meaningless question many posts ago.

Prior to independence and breaking of British rule they may not have been British people per se but they were British indoctrined subjects as in brain-washed to thing the Empire as it was then was all absorbing. Indians stood up for themselves and obtained independence despite Churchill seeking to starve Indians into submission to remain. Australia had plenty of British immigrants living out there and even more today but you see no clamber whatsoever to fall back under British rule. And yes many in Australia (now second or third generation) have British roots but they do not crave British rule.

You speak of indigenous Brits as if they have a sovereign-right to Scotland - they do not. Scotland was independent long before unionism was even thought of. 

As for me burying my head in the sand no I think not. I have given you the pure evidence that unionism is on the decline in Scotland. From 79% pro-unionist in 1979 to 45% pro-unionists I'd say in just over 40 years that is a marked dip and it is only going southwards as recent election results show. You admit unionists will be nasty during negotiations on the divorce settlement and people will see that. They won't be enamoured (far from it) with unionist attitude and ill will to such a degree it will harm unionism even more. 

Now can you give me evidence for your belief that unionism will surge? It has not surged in 50 years so see no reason for that changing when Scots see how nasty they will be.

Lol maybe you can point out the post where you answer the question because i cant see it.

Sorry but you are so far off mark comparing ppl who saw themselves as british subjects in the empire 100 years ago and ppl who are born and bred in scotland/britain who consider themselves british. Surely you can see the distinction.

British expats in australia still considering themselves as british does not mean the country produces british ppl. 

Countries that are not in britain do not produce indigenous british ppl. Thats a fact. The only way a person will identify with being native british is if they are the descendants of the brits in places like falklands and hong kong and even ireland. The idea that brits have been planted into southern scotland and thats why we have british ppl in our country is absolutely nuts and i honestly would be astounded that anyone can think this true.

Unionism has already surged, countless polls after brexit showed a clear majority for independence but in the last couple of years its went backwards to the point where its either 50/50 or slightly in favour on the union. That to me is worrying and if its not worrying for you then you are burying your head in the sand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Unionism has already surged, countless polls after brexit showed a clear majority for independence but in the last couple of years its went backwards to the point where its either 50/50 or slightly in favour on the union. That to me is worrying and if its not worrying for you then you are burying your head in the sand.

 

For fuck sake stop havering pish

Immediately after the 2014 referendum John Curtis of all people told you how many actual hardcore Unionists there were in Scotland going by the result

One third of all No voters

So that means two thirds of the No Vote were not that bothered

it was all about economics and it still is

There is no fucking surge in Unionism

Of course, describing the patterns of the kinds of people who were more or less likely to vote Yes or No does no more than give us clues as to why people voted they way they did. What we can note at this stage is that women, older people, those in ABC1 occupations and those born elsewhere in the UK were all, according to YouGov’s final poll for The Times and The Sun, relatively pessimistic about the economic consequences of independence. And as we have repeatedly noted on this site, nothing seemed to matter more to voters in deciding whether to vote Yes or No than their perceptions of the economic consequences of leaving the UK. Doubtless those who were less well off were more easily persuaded that independence might hold out the prospect of a better tomorrow, and that helps explain why the Yes vote acquired its relatively working class, less affluent character. But why women proved persistently reluctant to accept the economic case for independence will probably provide the basis for analysis and commentary for quite a while to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just catching up on this thread, ha. I'll start with this one.

On 7/1/2022 at 10:51 AM, Toepoke said:

On the flip side I'm pretty sure the polling after 2014 showed that over 30% of people born in England voted Yes.

To me that's an encouraging number that may increase in the post-Brexit environment. 

This is how I see it. People moan about 'outsiders' voting No. But they re 'no worse' (as it were) than how the general populace of Scots saw independence, not so long ago. 

It's hard to tell what way subsequent 'incomers' would vote. I expect there are many who would fancy moving here to escape Brexit Britain, and would vote Yes. The idea that loads of British nationalists would take the trouble to move to Scotland to help save the Union seems less likely. Maybe a few staunch 'expat' Scots but hard to see non Scots flocking to do so.

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

For fuck sake stop havering pish

Immediately after the 2014 referendum John Curtis of all people told you how many actual hardcore Unionists there were in Scotland going by the result

One third of all No voters

So that means two thirds of the No Vote were not that bothered

it was all about economics and it still is

There is no fucking surge in Unionism

Of course, describing the patterns of the kinds of people who were more or less likely to vote Yes or No does no more than give us clues as to why people voted they way they did. What we can note at this stage is that women, older people, those in ABC1 occupations and those born elsewhere in the UK were all, according to YouGov’s final poll for The Times and The Sun, relatively pessimistic about the economic consequences of independence. And as we have repeatedly noted on this site, nothing seemed to matter more to voters in deciding whether to vote Yes or No than their perceptions of the economic consequences of leaving the UK. Doubtless those who were less well off were more easily persuaded that independence might hold out the prospect of a better tomorrow, and that helps explain why the Yes vote acquired its relatively working class, less affluent character. But why women proved persistently reluctant to accept the economic case for independence will probably provide the basis for analysis and commentary for quite a while to come.

Exactly. 

I have said my piece here and some of the stuff suggested is ludicrous such as surge in unionism (why no unionist governments in Scotland for a dozen years)? Stuff like appease unionists by slicing up OUR country to give a portion of it to the UK. Not a chance. Scotland were an independent country long before this putrid poisonous union came into being so what's ours stays ours. The UK have already robbed us of some of the North Sea by moving the boundaries there. No more. And no more posts from me on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2022 at 9:42 PM, mccaughey85 said:

Perhaps scotland could split into two states. One thats a republic and pro indy and one thats british and still part of the uk. A border could be drawn from somewhere in ayrshire along to just south of edinburgh. All the pro british scots could move to this newly formed scottish/british state and have all the oo parades and unionist parties they want while the rest of scotland gets on with independence. 

I am half joking but it would certainly be a way for unionist scots to have their own british/scottish area where they can do what they want and it would also mean that the new scottish republic could concentrate on being independent without having a large minority of scots unionists undermining it. 

I know its a crazy suggestion but the countries pretty much split down the middle regarding independence and its not ideal to be dragging at least 40 percent along who dont want scottish independence or a scottish republic which is personally what i want.

 

I think you raise an interesting point about the country "producing British people" and that being different from other parts of the (ex) British Empire. There hasn't been much discussion about that.

But by the same token, the 'Brit identifying' section of Scotland is not, I think, as ingrained, culturally or certainly geographically, as the Brit identifying section of Northern Ireland. There, there are hundreds of years of ingrained patterns of land holding, settlement, people with different names and language, and of course religion. Scotland - and the No-voting population in general - is simply not like that. I think a geographical carve-up is a non starter. 

I think there must be other, more constructive (and non zero-sum) ways of better accommodating a British identifying minority.  This could include retaining ties with the monarchy and even strengthening ties with the role of the Queen as head of state and part-time resident of Scotland and maybe having some sort of strengthened north-south and east-west political fora (this could work especially in tandem with a reunited Ireland). These are just examples of what I mean by making it more likely to accommodate Britishness - albeit more of a post indy mitigation/damage limitation, rather than enticing people to vote Yes in advance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

It's rollings hills and ramy level pish too

 

 It's far worse than that. At least they are fairly concise with their pish and they give us a wee laugh now and again. 😂

This guy is just giving us rambling, repetitive nonsense. And, he can't even spell his own name right. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

 It's far worse than that. At least they are fairly concise with their pish and they give us a wee laugh now and again. 😂

This guy is just giving us rambling, repetitive nonsense. And, he can't even spell his own name right. 😉

But can you answer his question? CAN YOU?

Edited by vanderark14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would add another point is that polls have shown diminishing identification with being British, in Scotland.

In terms of what British-identifying people actually think and would want post-indy, maybe someone can tell us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Lol looks like i have ruffled a few feathers which is usually a sign on this board that ppl are hearing truths they dont want to hear. I think the heads are in the sand regarding alot these issues so lets just hope we get what we want. 

It’s more usual that it’s a sign that you’re talking nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Lol looks like i have ruffled a few feathers which is usually a sign on this board that ppl are hearing truths they dont want to hear. I think the heads are in the sand regarding alot these issues so lets just hope we get what we want. 

It's easy to ruffle feathers. Not so easy to convince anyone to your point of view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2022 at 1:39 PM, Ally Bongo said:

For fuck sake stop havering pish

Immediately after the 2014 referendum John Curtis of all people told you how many actual hardcore Unionists there were in Scotland going by the result

One third of all No voters

So that means two thirds of the No Vote were not that bothered

it was all about economics and it still is

There is no fucking surge in Unionism

Of course, describing the patterns of the kinds of people who were more or less likely to vote Yes or No does no more than give us clues as to why people voted they way they did. What we can note  this stage is that women, older people, those in ABC1 occupations and those born elsewhere in the UK were all, according to YouGov’s final poll for The Times and The Sun, relatively pessimistic about the economic consequences of independence. And as we have repeatedly noted on this site, nothing seemed to matter more to voters in deciding whether to vote Yes or No than their perceptions of the economic consequences of leaving the UK. Doubtless those who were less well off were more easily persuaded that independence might hold out the prospect of a better tomorrow, and that helps explain why the Yes vote acquired its relatively working class, less affluent character. But why women proved persistently reluctant to accept the economic case for independence will probably provide the basis for analysis and commentary for quite a while to come.

Just because john curtis and some poll told you that doesnt make it fact. 

Lets for a minute imagine it was true then near enough 36 percent of the no vote are mostly affected by economic consequences. If you then consider that some of the yes vote are voting due to economics too then you could have potentially 50 percent of the population basing their decision on economic success. Thats not a good situation to be in if indy scotland isnt an instant success. Basically we fukk up the first few years and things dont go well then potentially 40 to 50 percent of the population jump straight over to wanting back in the uk. 

Personally i dont believe that to be true. I believe theres alot more than 18 percent british unionists in scotland. Just because someone isnt in the oo or isnt turning up to ibrox with a uj doesnt mean they dont consider themselves british and they dont have pride in being british. Many scots like being british, most famous scots accept obes and mbes from the queen. For many being british is something they associate with and like. For some they will never vote indy and for others they might if the ecomonics is right but either way it still yields the same result and thats the result we saw in 2014. 

If you want to bury your head in the sand then fair enough, it seems like alot on here have braveheart on repeat and want to charge about thinking everyone thinks like them but in the long run you will only upset yourself even more when the result doesnt go your way.

Theres two things i know for a fact, 1 is we have a large amount of ppl who are too pussy to vote for independence(ecomonics etc) and 2 we have a large minority of ppl who would pretty much never vote for indy due to being proud brits. 

Thats not a good situation for any country looking to go independent. 

If you think otherwise then fair enough.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...