QuoteNationalism got lucky with almost every 5th seat they were in position to take. There might be a few seats that goback to Unionism next time but them getting back to 45 (or 40 as it should be next time) is a fantasy.
Not at all. I'm always too optimistic when it comes to elections so despite being hopeful on Friday I still thought there would be too many fifth-seaters that would fall to the dupers. Plus I decided to sit on the fence with results for a change.
To be wrong so spectacularly is something I'm happy about. I've waited on this sort of result since the ceasefire in 94. To say that I drank a bevvie or two to it on Friday night would be an understatement.
I'm delighted you have that moment because it means perpetual majority is gone. I'll take it.
This is predicated on unionists and the DUP learning a lesson. They never will.Originally Posted by Samuel Thompson
To see them castigate Nesbitt just shows they really don't understand what actually happened on Friday. Long may they remain in denial.
Last edited by BonnieShels; 07/03/2017 at 10:32 PM.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Nationalism got lucky with almost every 5th seat they were in position to take. There might be a few seats that goback to Unionism next time but them getting back to 45 (or 40 as it should be next time) is a fantasy.
@Danny, variously:
1 I don't understate the significance of the election. A 4% swing to Nationalism with barely any floating voters is impressive. Unionism is on the defensive and Foster will almost inevitably follow Nesbitt in resigning. Allister might retire too
2 The crucial watershed (as Adams calls it) was in 1972. Ever since then, guaranteed majority one party rule has been replaced by two big and squabbling minoriteis, and latterly a small but growing er, third force. A future and genuine watershed needs there to be 46 Nationalist MLAs. Gerry will probably be retired before that happens
3 NI media talk up the significance because they have to- otherwise the local news would be all about three-legged calves being born in Augher- Clogher, or similar. As you mentioned, London Media didn't think it important enough to read their briefing notes. BTW I'm pretty sure Isabel Oakeshott describing things as “dangerous” was just a figure of speech
4 Partition left more people on their preferred side of the/ any border than a 32-county Free State would have done. This is self-evident, yet you ignore it to re-fight great-granny's battles. The gerrymanders of 1920 or 1970 are about as relevant as local government 1690. I daresay it would have suited your simplistic one people on one island model if the Unionists had either bought a one-way ticket to Liverpool or Stranraer, or voted Fine Gael like their cousins in Cavan or Monaghan. But they didn't so why keep obsessing about it?
5 The island's population is divided because that's what the localised minority prefer. It's false to suggest there is a single expressed national will. Long-term, partition is not the cause of impoverisment: NI was economically stronger than the South for most of the 20th century even while a relatively poor, remote region of Britain. Because a UI might be rational, even popular in the future doesn't necessarily mean that it was in the past
6 NI nationalism isn't per se a philosophy of anything other than dissolving NI. It's more at ease with commemorating paramilitarism than allowing abortion (the latter as you mentioned)
7 A merger or formal deal within the Unionist parties (four, or six if you include Tory and UKIP) wouldn't make that much difference. It would still have factions which would continue not to co-operate with each other. And would still be transfer-unfriendly from non-aligned parties as others have said. Many previous Unionist voters might just stay at home
8 There's no realistic likelihood of either UUP or SDLP leading a coalition so less incentive to transfer to each other. That might help SF, DUP and AP. The election shows Alliance as the real third party now
Disagree totally about the point re. partition.
It held back the rest of the island getting greater economies of scale and was/is an irrational division on a small island. That and the fact that like it or not, 20% of Ireland's population are related to people who were transplanted in illegally, so as long as there's even one of their descendants on the island that will have passing relevance to their general status.
Don't have anything against those people personally and think they should make a lot more effort to assimilate(some have) but if the religious manics and the other pro-Brit loyalists/zealots are so fixated on London, the Queen etc, you'd think these morons would leave from somewhere they're not wanted, at the first opportunity?
Though the irony is the Brits/'mainland' don't want them either. Given the majority of Brits see the majority of Unionists as, er, Irish.
You can't dismiss something that is evidently still having profound economic, social and political implications in the immediate present as a "great-granny's battle". I support the GFA as a means of allowing people to move forward towards realising their legitimate aims and aspirations in a functional manner - in mutual acknowledgement of contrasting narratives - from a period of conflict and a position of political (or even military) stalemate. It's a practical compromise, but it still doesn't mean I think partition was right or just in the first instance. I still wish to see partition's demise for a whole multitude of reasons, from the political to the economic to the cultural, as I've already outlined.
If there's a hint that I might have advocated or be sympathetic to a regressive "go back to where your ancestors came from" stance, that's not the case at all. As you should well know, I believe in peacefully and constitutionally convincing unionists of the merits of Irish unity - I want them to voluntarily participate and contribute to Irish diversity - so that we can have a stable and more prosperous all-island society for the betterment and benefit of all.
There was a democratically-expressed national will pre-partition (when the island was treated as a political unit), and it sought national indepedence. Partition was a means of quashing that will, whilst it has also undeniably harmed and held back the entire island economy.5 The island's population is divided because that's what the localised minority prefer. It's false to suggest there is a single expressed national will. Long-term, partition is not the cause of impoverisment: NI was economically stronger than the South for most of the 20th century even while a relatively poor, remote region of Britain. Because a UI might be rational, even popular in the future doesn't necessarily mean that it was in the past
Nationalism is the people who make up its numbers and their historical experiences. It's not just an abstraction.6 NI nationalism isn't per se a philosophy of anything other than dissolving NI. It's more at ease with commemorating paramilitarism than allowing abortion (the latter as you mentioned)
All sides - including mainstream unionists and haughty British politicians - commemorate combatants involved in the conflict, in spite of wrongs committed on all sides. In saying that, the SDLP don't tend to commemorate republican volunteers and many members/supporters wouldn't feel comfortable doing so. Meanwhile, I see SF's position on abortion being relaxed in the near future, as already explained above.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 08/03/2017 at 1:29 PM.
Even Thatcher acknowledged they got it wrong in the papers released recently. - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ar...-35328461.html
Irish nationalism is badly named. It isn't a nationalist movement at all. For me nationalism is about the impression of superiority of a nation over others. I Don't think I've ever met a genuine Irish nationalist if one defines it as an Irish equivilant of Serbian nationalism for example. On the other hand in the USA almost everyone is a nationalist. Nobody would ever campaign for political office in Ireland talking about us being a "shining house on the hill" or "beacon of freedom".
There is nothing exceptional or special about Ireland. It's a wee island nation off Europe that does it's best.
Separatism might be a better descriptor. The philosophy would be that Ireland is neither superior nor inferior to our neighbours in Britain or the mainland. That we should be free to look after our own affairs, co-operating with other nations if and when we see fit.
Good point bttw, but that's typical of GR's pompous whataboutery on occasion sadly.
"Nationalism" is a traduced term as it is often or perhaps more commonly associated with far-right ethnic supremacists in other contexts, such as in Britain or Germany.
Scottish, Catalan and Basque nationalism, however, like Irish nationalism, generally aren't imperial or supremacist in nature. There are many different types of nationalism; both right-wing and left-wing or both ethnic and civic, for example. Scottish nationalism is civic and progressive. It's about celebrating Scottishness and the diversity within that rather than putting others down. I'd like to think of Irish nationalism as similar.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 08/03/2017 at 5:40 PM.
That is true. Though the Catalan and Basque independence movements tend to be described as "Seperatists" in the media and common parlance. I'm sure there are historical reasons for the difference in terminology, but I've no idea what they are.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
Perhaps it's rooted in our desire for home-rule primarily rather than separatism?
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
I'm not certain either, but can "separatist" be a term employed to sort of discredit or belittle nationalist independence movements by those hostile or unsympathetic to them? It can be used fairly neutrally or without such connotations or intent too, I'm sure, but my impression - and I could well be mistaken - is that it can or may primarily be used by the "established nation" (or majority/dominant body politic, along with its ideological allies), from whom another particular body of nationalists (most often a minority within a particular commonly-recognised or established state) wish to attain autonomy, as it implies that the "separatists" aren't actually a distinct nation but are really just fellow compatriots who have a desire to be separate from the "rightful/legitimate authority" of their "true nation" perhaps due to some "misguided" notion of themselves.
Maybe I'm way off, but let me use an example that might kind of flesh out what I'm thinking/saying... This page, for example, hosted by the right-wing, US-based and UK government-sympathetic Council on Foreign Relations, refers to the IRA as having been "(UK) separatists", but the IRA, or the various organisations operating under that name (indeed, numerous still do), would never have referred to themselves as "separatists" as doing so would have implied a recognition that they were operating under the legitimate authority or jurisdiction of the UK but sought to separate themselves from that and break free. As far as the IRA were concerned, however, Britain's claim over any part of Ireland has always been illegitimate and thus said claim was denied or not recognised. In essence then, the IRA regarded themselves as acting to enforce an already-declared all-island republic (declared as of 1916), which they asserted to be a de jure and existing entity. In accordance with the republican legitimatist line of thought, they weren't trying to break free from the UK because they asserted that they weren't legitimately under British control; rather, Britain was deemed to be illegally occupying Ireland, or part of it, and, hence, was getting in the way of the running of the already-declared and legitimate all-island republic. They posited that they were the official and legitimate army of this republic. To say they were attempting to separate from the UK (or engaging in separatism, in other words) would have been to deny the legitimacy and existence of the 1916-declared republic. To describe themselves as "separatists" might have implied a constitutional acceptance or recognition of the UK's asserted jurisdiction over them.
Does that provide any clarity on the/a possible distinction between "nationalist" and "separatist"? I'm just sort of reflecting aloud, but it's not something I'm totally sure of. Would, say, ETA have self-described as "Basque separatists" or would that have been a term favoured more so by the Spanish government and mainstream media?
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 10/03/2017 at 9:06 AM.
11 pages later...
I hope we've all proved we can be proper grown ups and resist the urge to throw **** at each other. I mean there has been a bit of that I'm sure but it's well within the boundaries of politics in any country, and I would dare to suggest it's a good bit better here than the average FF v FG internet ****fest.
The election being over now can this be renamed so we can keep it going as a thread for nordie politics. As well as perpetual negotiations have hospitals and a education and all that up here as much as anywhere else and a good mature group of people talking about it in a respectful manner.
Last edited by backstothewall; 11/03/2017 at 12:40 AM.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
Whatabou...only joking. Amen to all that, Brother
That's what they are doingIn reality, you want them to join an Irish conformity...
You don't know what might have happened without partition. The 30 year conflict from the 70s might have happened in the 20s, on a wider scale. Which could have encouraged even more stagnant economic policies from Eddie Coll and co (what he actually got up to had little or nothing to do with partition). And so on.Partition...has also undeniably harmed and held back the entire island economy
We've just had the 2017 Election, but some of you are still complaining about 1918 one. It's as irrelevant as Captain Cook or Davy Crockett are to an Austrlian or American poll. The expressed will of the entire Irish People as Danny keeps calling it hasn't existed since that earlier election.
Good. Similarly, I see gay marriage being enacted following a free vote or even referendum in the near future. Neither should then be a major election issue?Meanwhile, I see SF's position on abortion being relaxed in the near future, as already explained above
As for abstracts, you use them far more than I do. I just analyse what SF does, ie respond to its electorate. For every group of voters that supports their social policies, there's a larger lobby that tolerates/ expects Michelle P to hang out with the Balaclava Boys in a graveyard.
Over a long period of recent history, it has systematically murdered people and blown up their livelihoods. Similarly to Irish Nationalism, indeed. Aren't we moving away from discussing abstracts?Basque Nationalism [isn't] supremacist in nature
As Danny says, the IRA in NI aren't separatists from Britain. They're applicants to join the South of Ireland which- whatever you think of the current fashion for 'inevitable' Irish Unity- has clearly been playing hard to get for some time now...
Last edited by Gather round; 11/03/2017 at 9:23 AM.
PS I've just bought the book by Kevin Meagher that DI referred above, on an inevitable UI. Available for about EU5-6 from Amazon.
A quick initial skim read has him comparing that to Liverpool winning the EPL. Over to you, Juergen...
Ah, I think it's a bit unfair to crudely simplify my position as such. I'll assume you're being somewhat mischievous.That's what they are doing
As far as De Valera was concerned, I think partition gave him the platform to instigate his carnival as reaction (as James Connolly predicted).You don't know what might have happened without partition. The 30 year conflict from the 70s might have happened in the 20s, on a wider scale. Which could have encouraged even more stagnant economic policies from Eddie Coll and co (what he actually got up to had little or nothing to do with partition). And so on.
Because the border was imposed so as to suppress that.We've just had the 2017 Election, but some of you are still complaining about 1918 one. It's as irrelevant as Captain Cook or Davy Crockett are to an Austrlian or American poll. The expressed will of the entire Irish People as Danny keeps calling it hasn't existed since that earlier election.
For me or for Sinn Féin? They're big issues for women and the LGBT community; if those sections of society wish to make issues that affect them as directly as stringent abortion legislation or non-recognition of same-sex marriage do major election issues, they're more than entitled to do so. I fully support them in their campaigns and endeavours.Good. Similarly, I see gay marriage being enacted following a free vote or even referendum in the near future. Neither should then be a major election issue?
Free votes in Stormont (if it gets up and running again)? One can only hope they'll succeed. The DUP, TUV and one other MLA designated as 'Unionist' could still successfully veto such a vote via the petition of concern mechanism.
How likely would referenda be? They'd be very unusual for northern politics.
Not out of a sense of supremacism though. It's important to properly understand the context and rationale, however troubling or regrettable certain acts may have been.Over a long period of recent history, it has systematically murdered people and blown up their livelihoods. Similarly to Irish Nationalism, indeed. Aren't we moving away from discussing abstracts?
Except a good number of them don't even admit their 'Irishness'...
So not exactly vastly different from what happened...You don't know what might have happened without partition. The 30 year conflict from the 70s might have happened in the 20s, on a wider scale. Which could have encouraged even more stagnant economic policies from Eddie Coll and co (what he actually got up to had little or nothing to do with partition). And so on.
Except they've had no chance to do so in a 100 years...We've just had the 2017 Election, but some of you are still complaining about 1918 one. It's as irrelevant as Captain Cook or Davy Crockett are to an Austrlian or American poll. The expressed will of the entire Irish People as Danny keeps calling it hasn't existed since that earlier election.
As for the relevance of history, the entire premise of the North was/is based on a battle a mere 327 years ago, on which a good number of these supposedly 'Irish' people are fixated on!! Annually FFS.
You mean Michelle O'Neill.I just analyse what SF does, ie respond to its electorate. For every group of voters that supports their social policies, there's a larger lobby that tolerates/ expects Michelle P to hang out with the Balaclava Boys in a graveyard.
And clearly you were looking out for a 'whataboutery' response given the number of unionist politicians who've hung out with loyalist paramilitaries.
It's a bit daft to sound so pompous about when both sides have been as bad.
Whereas exponents of British nationalism would never dream of such a thing.Over a long period of recent history, it has systematically murdered people and blown up their livelihoods. Similarly to Irish Nationalism, indeed.
Except they're not the problem, generally, it's other Irish people, supposedly...As Danny says, the IRA in NI aren't separatists from Britain. They're applicants to join the South of Ireland which- whatever you think of the current fashion for 'inevitable' Irish Unity- has clearly been playing hard to get for some time now...
Gerry Adams was on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show this morn. For those who can access it, it's on iPlayer (from 15m15s) here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...-show-12032017
I thought he gave a very fair and comprehensive outline of the present situation in the north within the very limited time made available to him.
Jude Collins looked at it from the perspective of how the interview was indicative of the English media's casual, brief and passive treatment of or approach to affairs in the north of Ireland and I think he's spot on in what he observes:
Adams also stated that he'd met with Arlene Foster himself within the past week; I can't even begin to imagine what the atmosphere might be like in a meeting like that.
Unconfirmed reports saying Gerry walked in eating a bag of Tayto pickled onion flavoured Snaps, and encouraged her to have one, saying 'plenty more where these came from'.
Foster herself was on Sky News on Saturday stating that she has no plans to step down even if it means the institutions won't get up and running again: http://news.sky.com/story/foster-sin...onism-10797716
She also said the following, which can be heard in the short video found within the link above:
That final quote and the bit I've highlighted in the other quoted section above amount to an incredibly disingenuous framing of the present situation and of Sinn Féin's position. Sinn Féin aren't dictating to the DUP who the DUP's leader should be; the Sinn Féin position is simply that they won't work with the DUP with Foster as leader until an inquiry clears her of what she has been accused. Sinn Féin are perfectly entitled to take such a stance and to manage their own positions, policies, principles and conduct. Taking such a stance is their own business and relates only to their own conduct. The DUP can keep Foster as leader if they wish or they can replace her if they wish, as far as Sinn Féin are concerned. Nobody is denying the DUP their right or choice to do this, nor are they being forced to do something against their will. Sinn Féin are simply saying that they will refuse to work with the DUP if Foster remains as leader but they will work with them if the leader is someone other than Foster; the choice of who the DUP wish to have lead them still ultimately rests with the DUP.
If Sinn Féin wished to be as equally disingenuous and nonsensical, they could frame the situation as the DUP trying to dictate to Sinn Féin who they must work with in government.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks