Unionism

[Ally Bongo]

29 minutes ago, aaid said:

If only there was some sort of data that could prove this one way or another.



https://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/moreno-national-identity-5/

I get the feeling that wont be enough for McGaughy

Better to go with anecdotal evidence and what he thinks

[mccaughey85]

28 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

I get the feeling that wont be enough for McGaughy

Better to go with anecdotal evidence and what he thinks

Lol that graph backs up what i have been saying. The equally scottish and british is around 26 percent. The more british than scottish and the british not scottish is around 4/5 percent each. That means we have roughly 35 percent who either place their britishness on par with their scottishness or feel more british than scottish. Thats terrible news for the indy side.

Worryingly the scottish not british line is only roughly at 29 percent. Its also gone down overall since 2000 whereas the equally scottish and british line has risen slightly. 

The other description line i am guessing might be the english and british which is sitting about 9%. It would certainly fit in with the stats that i have seen that show roughly 8/9 percent of our population is uk/english born.

That graph makes terrible reading for the independence cause.

My hope was that maybe 40 + percent would identify with being scottish not british but it looks far worse than what i thought going by that graph.

Edited July 5, 2022 by mccaughey85

[Newryrep]

On 7/2/2022 at 11:06 AM, 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?

Absolute guff neatly rubbished in the next post 

 

the only thing that united the pro and treaty forces was how to deal with the north 

 

the split was on the treaty and damn all to do with partition which both sides assumed was temporary 

[mccaughey85]

58 minutes ago, Newryrep said:

Absolute guff neatly rubbished in the next post 

 

the only thing that united the pro and treaty forces was how to deal with the north 

 

the split was on the treaty and damn all to do with partition which both sides assumed was temporary 

There was a split over the concessions made in the anglo-treaty. Surely the reasons some of these concessions were made was that the north had a huge population of unionist protestants who previously had threatened war over the idea of home rule and wanted the option to remain in the uk.

Why was northern ireland given the option to opt out of the "free state" in the treaty?

Because a huge amount of pro british unionists wanted to opt out of the free state and wanted to remain british.

So if you ask yourself what caused a split over the treaty surely it must the concessions made which were unacceptable to a large portion of republicans which one of main ones was the north being given the option to opt out of this new free state.

Not really sure what the disagreement is here, you are saying the irish civil war wasnt over partition and mostly over the other concessions in the treaty?

Maybe thats right tbh, i aint an expert, i have read a fair bit online over the years but was always under the impression that the the irish civil war was largely down to partition and that partition was down to huge unionist population in the north who wished to remain british. If thats not true then why is ireland partitioned and why was there a split over the treaty?

 

 

[mccaughey85]

6 hours ago, aaid said:

If only there was some sort of data that could prove this one way or another.



https://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/moreno-national-identity-5/

Check my post above, that graph only backs up everything i have said so far.

[Ally Bongo]

Irish War of Independence 1919-1921

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence

Anglo Irish Treaty 1921

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

Irish Civil War 1922-1923

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War

[aaid]

18 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Check my post above, that graph only backs up everything i have said so far.

Maybe if what you are saying is that anyone who takes a neutral position - equally Scottish and British - is some form of Uber-Unionist, I certainly wouldn’t and I would suspect neither would most reasonable people.

My reading of those numbers are that there are only 9% of people who self describe themselves as being British over Scottish and that there are 55% who self describe themselves as being Scottish over British.  The rest are somewhere in between.

Of course, national identity is only part of this, but I think it gives good pointers.

Lets face it, you’ve been all over it on this thread. 

[Newryrep]

1 hour ago, mccaughey85 said:

There was a split over the concessions made in the anglo-treaty. Surely the reasons some of these concessions were made was that the north had a huge population of unionist protestants who previously had threatened war over the idea of home rule and wanted the option to remain in the uk.

Why was northern ireland given the option to opt out of the "free state" in the treaty?

Because a huge amount of pro british unionists wanted to opt out of the free state and wanted to remain british.

So if you ask yourself what caused a split over the treaty surely it must the concessions made which were unacceptable to a large portion of republicans which one of main ones was the north being given the option to opt out of this new free state.

Not really sure what the disagreement is here, you are saying the irish civil war wasnt over partition and mostly over the other concessions in the treaty?

Maybe thats right tbh, i aint an expert, i have read a fair bit online over the years but was always under the impression that the the irish civil war was largely down to partition and that partition was down to huge unionist population in the north who wished to remain british. If thats not true then why is ireland partitioned and why was there a split over the treaty?

 

 

the treaty had very little to do with partition , partition was already a done deal because the UK government caved in to threats from a minority and parts of the conservative party actively supported treason ( to their eternal shame ) 

the treaty was a republic against essential home rule  with oath of allegience and the stepping stone to a republic  - the UK was never going to allow a republic Collins seen that (it was well telegraphed) and he cut the best deal he could against the threat of a 'terrible and immediate war '   - it was still the right decision 

 

the presence of the a pro british unionist grouping in 6 of 9 counties of ulster is a red herring and your suggestion of a partition of Scotland given the history of partition of ireland /India frankly is baffling 

when you look around and see the likes of John Taylor ( at the last referendum) is also supporting this as well as suggesting people in NI should be able to vote you might want to think  - am i in the right group ?

[mccaughey85]

29 minutes ago, aaid said:

Maybe if what you are saying is that anyone who takes a neutral position - equally Scottish and British - is some form of Uber-Unionist, I certainly wouldn’t and I would suspect neither would most reasonable people.

My reading of those numbers are that there are only 9% of people who self describe themselves as being British over Scottish and that there are 55% who self describe themselves as being Scottish over British.  The rest are somewhere in between.

Of course, national identity is only part of this, but I think it gives good pointers.

Lets face it, you’ve been all over it on this thread. 

Eh? Being equally scottish and british is not a neutral view. The hardline scottish unionists tend to be proud scots as well, i have never claimed that the scottish unionists see themselves as just british. Most tend to view themselves as both and that graph shows clearly that there is 35 percent of them.

Surely the graph showing 35 percent who either equally feel british and scottish or feel more british than scottish tells us that being british is still a massive identity to many in scotland.

The fact that you and ally can look at this graph as proof of there being very few ppl who identify as british is to me baffling. Lol Are we looking at the same graph. Surely you can see that theres 35 percent who obviously have a strong british identity. Hell theres even a 26 percent who identify loosley with being british and only 29% who only view themselves as scottish not british.

So we have a total of 61 percent who have some kind of feeling of britishness according to that graph.

Then theres the 9 percent who identify as other. I am willing to bet that line has a significant number of ppl who see themselves as english and british who have moved to scotland.

I hope that graph is bullshit or massively wrong because it doesnt read well for the indy cause.

Edited July 5, 2022 by mccaughey85

[mccaughey85]

19 minutes ago, Newryrep said:

the treaty had very little to do with partition , partition was already a done deal because the UK government caved in to threats from a minority and parts of the conservative party actively supported treason ( to their eternal shame ) 

the treaty was a republic against essential home rule  with oath of allegience and the stepping stone to a republic  - the UK was never going to allow a republic Collins seen that (it was well telegraphed) and he cut the best deal he could against the threat of a 'terrible and immediate war '   - it was still the right decision 

 

the presence of the a pro british unionist grouping in 6 of 9 counties of ulster is a red herring and your suggestion of a partition of Scotland given the history of partition of ireland /India frankly is baffling 

when you look around and see the likes of John Taylor ( at the last referendum) is also supporting this as well as suggesting people in NI should be able to vote you might want to think  - am i in the right group ?

I doubt the british would have had as much leverage when negotiating the treaty and its concessions if there hadnt been a huge amount of unionists in the north willing to kick off and cause major problems. 

So what do you believe is the root cause of centuries of civil war and conflict in ireland? Imo it comes down to 2 things.

1. England/Britain invaded and has refused to give up what they see is their colony despite countless rebellions from the native irish.

2. There is a large unionist british population planted there that want to remain british and part of the uk. This group has been used to divide ireland and maintain british rule.

You can talk about treatys and partition etc but if your honest then those are the two issues that prevents or has prevented ireland from obtaining full independence unity.

My idea of partition in scotland is far different from ireland. The idea of redrawing the border is different in that the newly formed independent scottish state would never look to ever retake the area lost to the uk. It would always be british from then on. The difference between ireland and scotland is that scotland naturally produces ppl who identify as british and see themselves as british. Thats just the nature of being on the island of britain.The graph above clearly shows this. Ireland doesnt produce british ppl naturally.

The idea was mostly a throwaway and outlandish suggestion that i knew ppl would dislike but its caused a debate thats opened my eyes to how out of touch indy supporters in here are regarding what level of british identity ppl have in scotland and how many feel some affinity with being british. For many in here they live in some kind of fantasy were 70 or more percent of the population are rabid scottish nationalists just itching to leave the uk and denounce all things british. The fact that ally and aiid are putting up a graph that clearly shows 61% have some form of british identity and 35% are just as british as they are scottish or even more proves that point. 

 

 

[vanderark14]

7 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

I doubt the british would have had as much leverage when negotiating the treaty and its concessions if there hadnt been a huge amount of unionists in the north willing to kick off and cause major problems. 

So what do you believe is the root cause of centuries of civil war and conflict in ireland? Imo it comes down to 2 things.

1. England/Britain invaded and has refused to give up what they see is their colony despite countless rebellions from the native irish.

2. There is a large unionist british population planted there that want to remain british and part of the uk. This group has been used to divide ireland and maintain british rule.

You can talk about treatys and partition etc but if your honest then those are the two issues that prevents or has prevented ireland from obtaining full independence unity.

My idea of partition in scotland is far different from ireland. The idea of redrawing the border is different in that the newly formed independent scottish state would never look to ever retake the area lost to the uk. It would always be british from then on. The difference between ireland and scotland is that scotland naturally produces ppl who identify as british and see themselves as british. Thats just the nature of being on the island of britain.The graph above clearly shows this. Ireland doesnt produce british ppl naturally.

The idea was mostly a throwaway and outlandish suggestion that i knew ppl would dislike but its caused a debate thats opened my eyes to how out of touch indy supporters in here are regarding what level of british identity ppl have in scotland and how many feel some affinity with being british. For many in here they live in some kind of fantasy were 70 or more percent of the population are rabid scottish nationalists just itching to leave the uk and denounce all things british. The fact that ally and aiid are putting up a graph that clearly shows 61% have some form of british identity and 35% are just as british as they are scottish or even more proves that point. 

 

 

6 days later and you are still repeating the same nonsense 

[ErsatzThistle]

McCaughey, we get it, you think you are on a higher level of intelligence than the rest of us plebs on the TAMB.

You ain't.

I would also be careful about giving pompous and wildly inaccurate lectures to Newryrep on the history of his own country.

[Newryrep]

If the British had moved against the unionists they wouldn’t have lasted 3 days and the country woukd of been united 

if the British had withdrawn support for the unionists they wouldn’t have lasted 3 weeks and the country woukd have been united 

If Britain had let Ireland go the empire was doomed never mind the strategic reasons for occupying it - it staggered on for another 30 years before dissolving 

again your proposal for repartition smacks of unionism along with a super majority which in reality is a veto 

 

[exile]

8 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

I doubt the british would have had as much leverage when negotiating the treaty and its concessions if there hadnt been a huge amount of unionists in the north willing to kick off and cause major problems. 

So what do you believe is the root cause of centuries of civil war and conflict in ireland? Imo it comes down to 2 things.

1. England/Britain invaded and has refused to give up what they see is their colony despite countless rebellions from the native irish.

2. There is a large unionist british population planted there that want to remain british and part of the uk. This group has been used to divide ireland and maintain british rule.

You can talk about treatys and partition etc but if your honest then those are the two issues that prevents or has prevented ireland from obtaining full independence unity.

My idea of partition in scotland is far different from ireland. The idea of redrawing the border is different in that the newly formed independent scottish state would never look to ever retake the area lost to the uk. It would always be british from then on. The difference between ireland and scotland is that scotland naturally produces ppl who identify as british and see themselves as british. Thats just the nature of being on the island of britain.The graph above clearly shows this. Ireland doesnt produce british ppl naturally.

The idea was mostly a throwaway and outlandish suggestion that i knew ppl would dislike but its caused a debate thats opened my eyes to how out of touch indy supporters in here are regarding what level of british identity ppl have in scotland and how many feel some affinity with being british. For many in here they live in some kind of fantasy were 70 or more percent of the population are rabid scottish nationalists just itching to leave the uk and denounce all things british. The fact that ally and aiid are putting up a graph that clearly shows 61% have some form of british identity and 35% are just as british as they are scottish or even more proves that point. 

 

 

Depends what you mean by "naturally produces ppl who identify as british"

If you mean that some Scots bring up their children to identify as British, then that is surely the same as unionists in Northern Ireland who do the same thing.

If you mean that those people from Scotland identifying as British are 'naturally' British as they are literally from the island of Gt Britain, then by the same argument, they are also 'naturally' Scottish, and people identifying as Scottish are also 'naturally' British. And Ulster unionists are 'naturally' Irish.

[mccaughey85]

3 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

6 days later and you are still repeating the same nonsense 

If you dont want to discuss it then why are you on the thread. Just leave the rest of us to it.

 

[vanderark14]

1 hour ago, mccaughey85 said:

If you dont want to discuss it then why are you on the thread. Just leave the rest of us to it.

 

I am not discussing it, I have pointed out you are repeating the same point over and over. I think you made your point by now

 

You are welcome

[mccaughey85]

2 hours ago, Newryrep said:

If the British had moved against the unionists they wouldn’t have lasted 3 days and the country woukd of been united 

if the British had withdrawn support for the unionists they wouldn’t have lasted 3 weeks and the country woukd have been united 

If Britain had let Ireland go the empire was doomed never mind the strategic reasons for occupying it - it staggered on for another 30 years before dissolving 

again your proposal for repartition smacks of unionism along with a super majority which in reality is a veto 

 

Repartition? We havent been partitioned once. 

Tbh i will just leave it there on the partition subject as i can see most on here hate the very idea.

I just dont see us voting for independence and even if we do it could be a rocky road for us if things dont work out well.

Do you think we will vote for independence?

Do you currently live in scotland?

[mccaughey85]

4 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

McCaughey, we get it, you think you are on a higher level of intelligence than the rest of us plebs on the TAMB.

You ain't.

I would also be careful about giving pompous and wildly inaccurate lectures to Newryrep on the history of his own country.

Lol whys everyone so sensitive. If you dont want to discuss the subject then theres plenty of other threads to go on.

 

 

[mccaughey85]

2 hours ago, exile said:

Depends what you mean by "naturally produces ppl who identify as british"

If you mean that some Scots bring up their children to identify as British, then that is surely the same as unionists in Northern Ireland who do the same thing.

If you mean that those people from Scotland identifying as British are 'naturally' British as they are literally from the island of Gt Britain, then by the same argument, they are also 'naturally' Scottish, and people identifying as Scottish are also 'naturally' British. And Ulster unionists are 'naturally' Irish.

Nah its different. The northern ireland unionists are largely decended settlers from lowland scotland and northern england. We naturally produce ppl with a  british identity and have done for centuries.

I am not disagreeing with the second part. The british ppl we produce are obviously scottish as well and usually they are proud of both identities. You get the few oddballs who say they are more british than scottish but most of your hardline unionists tend to be equally scottish and british. Ulster unionists are naturally irish, the fact they cling onto the identity of being british is mostly because they originally come from britain.

The graph shows this group make up about a third of our population which imo is pretty accurate. These are the ppl which will try and undermine our country and if they organise themselves under one party similar to how the nationalists do under the snp then we could have a tough time in an indy scotland. We have a large amount of voters who swing back and forth depending on ecomonics which is another worry for me as that means indy scotland will need to prosper in the short and medium term in order to stop these ppl wanting back in the uk.

I fall into the scottish not british category which i already know is very much a minority grouping but i didnt realise its 29%. I seen a poll years ago that had "scottish only" at nearly two thirds of our population but the wording was different in that poll so maybe thats why it came up so high. 

What group on that graph do you come under?

 

[exile]

6 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Nah its different. The northern ireland unionists are largely decended settlers from lowland scotland and northern england. We naturally produce ppl with a  british identity and have done for centuries.

I am not disagreeing with the second part. The british ppl we produce are obviously scottish as well and usually they are proud of both identities. You get the few oddballs who say they are more british than scottish but most of your hardline unionists tend to be equally scottish and british. Ulster unionists are naturally irish, the fact they cling onto the identity of being british is mostly because they originally come from britain.

The graph shows this group make up about a third of our population which imo is pretty accurate. These are the ppl which will try and undermine our country and if they organise themselves under one party similar to how the nationalists do under the snp then we could have a tough time in an indy scotland. We have a large amount of voters who swing back and forth depending on ecomonics which is another worry for me as that means indy scotland will need to prosper in the short and medium term in order to stop these ppl wanting back in the uk.

I fall into the scottish not british category which i already know is very much a minority grouping but i didnt realise its 29%. I seen a poll years ago that had "scottish only" at nearly two thirds of our population but the wording was different in that poll so maybe thats why it came up so high. 

What group on that graph do you come under?

 

As I said, it depends what you mean by "naturally".

You seem to be devaluing or writing off the British identity of British-identifying Northern Irish people. By referring to them descending from people outside Ireland, and even if they lived there all their life and their family has identified as British as far back as their family memory stretches, you seem to imply their British cultural/political identity doesn't count.

Here is a map showing a different take on who people identify:

 

Parts of Northern Ireland, London and Leicester seem to be where people feel most British. Not Scotland.

Edited July 6, 2022 by exile

[mccaughey85]

4 hours ago, exile said:

As I said, it depends what you mean by "naturally".

You seem to be devaluing or writing off the British identity of British-identifying Northern Irish people. By referring to them descending from people outside Ireland, and even if they lived there all their life and their family has identified as British as far back as their family memory stretches, you seem to imply their British cultural/political identity doesn't count.

Here is a map showing a different take on who people identify:

 

Parts of Northern Ireland, London and Leicester seem to be where people feel most British. Not Scotland.

Me Devaluing their britishness is irrelevant. Fact is they identify as british because their ancestors came from britain. They would not be in ireland had their ancestors not settled and colonised the north. 

The ppl identifying as british in scotland didnt move to scotland. They are indigenous to the lowlands of scotland(and arguably other parts) so therefore we produce british ppl naturally and have done for centuries. 

 

[exile]

2 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Me Devaluing their britishness is irrelevant. Fact is they identify as british because their ancestors came from britain. They would not be in ireland had their ancestors not settled and colonised the north. 

The ppl identifying as british in scotland didnt move to scotland. They are indigenous to the lowlands of scotland(and arguably other parts) so therefore we produce british ppl naturally and have done for centuries. 

 

But your case seems to hang on dismissing Ulster Britishness as somehow not real, which is clearly not the case. As shown in the map I just posted, Britishness is stronger and more geographically concentrated in (parts of) N Ireland than anywhere in Scotland. Partition just does not make any sense. 

[Caledonian Craig]

Questions.

How many people who live in Scotland but see themselves as British then Scottish will there be who feel defiant enough to rally and organise themselves into a coherent perhaps one political party to consistently push to rejoin the union? 

In my eyes you need a passion for that and work for it every day against all odds like the independence movement has. It is something Yessers have done because they care passionately about it. How many unionists care as passionately about the union to dedicate their lives to that fight especially when a proportion of them are Scottish by birth?

If independence ocurrs there are other things to consider too which will come into play. Yes independence will be tough in the formative years but Westminster and the rest of the UK will feel the effects too. They are not going to continue along merrily - their lives will financially be hit too. It will also see the Welsh drive for independence gather momentum even more. They will be galvanized into a greater push for independence to increase the view of unionist implosion. And let's not forget Northern Ireland as polls show a big rise in reunification of Ireland support. 

With all of that going on many unionists in Scotland will begin to get the message. Not the Uber unionists for sure but ones who are currently not sure about independence and vote No. And remember the political landscape in Holyrood is of a pro-independence flavour and that will not change for at least, perhaps five years of an independent Scotland. In that time moves will be being made to rejoin the EU so that will dilute any burning ambition unionists may have too. Many of them (not Uber) will be excited by that and will not want to rock the boat. Post-five years in people will see that being independent is not the Armageddon unionist said it would be killing off more unionist fervour.

So you see how many uber-unionists out there are there to continue their fight? How will they continue the fight? Protest marches? Meh they happen in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK every second day.

[Dave78]

1 hour ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Questions.

How many people who live in Scotland but see themselves as British then Scottish will there be who feel defiant enough to rally and organise themselves into a coherent perhaps one political party to consistently push to rejoin the union? 

In my eyes you need a passion for that and work for it every day against all odds like the independence movement has. It is something Yessers have done because they care passionately about it. How many unionists care as passionately about the union to dedicate their lives to that fight especially when a proportion of them are Scottish by birth?

 

Going by the data about 9%.

Things will play out as you say, which is in line with other countries who have narrowly voted to become independent, and indeed Scottish attitudes to our current devolved settlement.

McCaughey seems determined to ignore this though in defence of the damaging idea of partition.

[mccaughey85]

5 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Questions.

How many people who live in Scotland but see themselves as British then Scottish will there be who feel defiant enough to rally and organise themselves into a coherent perhaps one political party to consistently push to rejoin the union? 

In my eyes you need a passion for that and work for it every day against all odds like the independence movement has. It is something Yessers have done because they care passionately about it. How many unionists care as passionately about the union to dedicate their lives to that fight especially when a proportion of them are Scottish by birth?

If independence ocurrs there are other things to consider too which will come into play. Yes independence will be tough in the formative years but Westminster and the rest of the UK will feel the effects too. They are not going to continue along merrily - their lives will financially be hit too. It will also see the Welsh drive for independence gather momentum even more. They will be galvanized into a greater push for independence to increase the view of unionist implosion. And let's not forget Northern Ireland as polls show a big rise in reunification of Ireland support. 

With all of that going on many unionists in Scotland will begin to get the message. Not the Uber unionists for sure but ones who are currently not sure about independence and vote No. And remember the political landscape in Holyrood is of a pro-independence flavour and that will not change for at least, perhaps five years of an independent Scotland. In that time moves will be being made to rejoin the EU so that will dilute any burning ambition unionists may have too. Many of them (not Uber) will be excited by that and will not want to rock the boat. Post-five years in people will see that being independent is not the Armageddon unionist said it would be killing off more unionist fervour.

So you see how many uber-unionists out there are there to continue their fight? How will they continue the fight? Protest marches? Meh they happen in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK every second day.

Are you suggesting that its only ppl who feel more british than scottish that are uber unionists?

The uber unionists are usually in my experience equally scottish and british with a small minority of them being more british than scottish. The graph shows that to be true. Not that i am saying the graph is necessarily gospel but the idea that its just ppl who feel more british than scottish who are uber unioninists is rubbish.

Would you admit theres a chance that independence might not go well in the first 10 years?

We have nearly a third of our population who are uber unionists. Thats not just disappearing because you think it will.