Player eligibility row

[ArdeeBhoy]

You are confusing us GR!



Alan Kernaghan qualified for us because he could get an Irish passport which was the rule at the time. He had 4 grandparents born on the island of Ireland and 1 would have been enough.
partition had nothing to do with it. Any NI born player or who had a parent or grandparent from NI was eligible for us at the time.
Sounds like they should never have changed from that rule!
Didn't AK play in a match against the North, attracting particular vitriol from the usual suspects, for being a 'traitor' ?

[co. down green]

I found another player we can poach. The name McCullough suggests he could be Protestant or Catholic, but apparently once we get our teeth into these lads they are completely powerless against our seduction attempts.

http://www.irishcentral.com/sport/Manchester-United-land-Northern-Ireland-youth-captain-on-scholarship-97608064.html

Another one to keep our eyes on

http://www.clarets-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/mccartan_joins_youth_squad_528144/index.shtml

[gspain]

Cheers for the information. If that was the rule then so, are you aware of what was preventing us from calling up other players with northern roots or even just players from the north up until 1998, seemingly? A gentlemen's agreement or something?

In the 1950s the FAI went to FIFA to stop the IFA from picking southern born players. There was most likely a gentleman's agreement between the 2 associaitions agreed but that is long since forgotten. We did pick some NI born players for the Iberia tour in 1946 and a handful before the war.

The reality up until the late 1980's is that we would have been seen as the 2nd choice. NI had qualified for world cups, won Home Championships etc. Any NI born player
was eligible then though. There has been a huge increase in support from north of the border in the last 20 years and this naturally leads players to look south as well. There were very few block bookers or on the waiting list from NI 20 years ago but now there is a significant percentage of the home and away support from north of the border. Anecdotally you can tell that from the accents as well at games home and away. We have also been much more successful for most of the past 23 years than NI. Success does make a huge difference.

Derry City joining the LoI would also have a big impact on Derry. Players would be in the FAI system etc however that does not explain Lurgan or Belfast or other places.

[gspain]

Didn't AK play in a match against the North, attracting particular vitriol from the usual suspects, for being a 'traitor' ?

He played in the famous night at Windsor when we qualified for USA 94. He got dogs abuse being called a traitor and a Lundy. He played very well that night although we were never really under pressure.

He then lost his place to our future world class star that Liverpool paid loads of money for -- Phil Babb. For a few months in 1994 we thought we had the next Paul McGrath.

Alan got a few more caps after 1993 but he was never a regular again.

[Predator]

The reality up until the late 1980's is that we would have been seen as the 2nd choice.My father and his buddies would disagree.

[dantheman]

Another one to keep our eyes on

http://www.clarets-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/mccartan_joins_youth_squad_528144/index.shtml

McRory Cup player? Shay McCartan from 95% taig Newry?
This lad's a super-Mick!!

[EastTerracer]

Alan Kernaghan qualified for us because he could get an Irish passport which was the rule at the time. He had 4 grandparents born on the island of Ireland and 1 would have been enough.
partition had nothing to do with it. Any NI born player or who had a parent or grandparent from NI was eligible for us at the time.

There is actually a partition element to this but it no longer applies. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 reinforced the rights of anyone born in the North to Irish citizenship (as enshrined in the constitution) but for some reason section 7.1 of the Act formally withheld automatic citizenship from those born in Northern Ireland, requiring registration “pending the re-integration of the national territory". However, this was rendered irrelevant for most Northern born nationalists in 1956 by section 6.2 and section 6.4 providing, at the extreme, automatic citizenship for “every living person who is the grandchild of aperson born in any part of the thirty-two counties prior to 6th December, 1922”.

To summarise, having established the Irish republic in 1948, and under pressure about the territorial claim, the Act did say Northern-born people couldn't get "automatic" citizenship but, if their grandparents were born before the country was partitioned, then they could get "automatic" citizenship. This effectively gave everyone citizenship at the time (if they wanted it). This was the situation until the passing of the Good Friday agreement in 1998 but it only really became an issue in the 1970s. If we assume that most people's grandparents are 50 years older than they are then it wasn't until 1971-ish that the first Northern born people who didn't meet this criteria were born. Kernaghan qualified for an Irish passport under this rule. Its's doubtful if Darron Gibson's grandparents were born before 1921 but by the time he came along this was no longer a requirement and the legislation had changed.

Thankfully the Good Friday Agreement allowed the Irish Government to amend the qualification to make it clear that anyone who's grandparents were born on the Island of Ireland (regardless of when) automatically qualified for Irish citizenship which was always the intention of the Irish constitution and Irish citizenship law but which had been complicated by the 1956 Act.

[DannyInvincible]

Odd question. I mean, as I've explained repeatedly, there are two nations in Ireland, both with the word 'Ireland' in their official names. Not that I'm as hidebound by those as some on this thread.

I don't want to labour the point too much and appear like I'm trying to strangle you into submission - I ask because I'm interested in the whole idea of identity and such - but, doesn't that amount to an explicit acknowledgement of a distinction you were previously denying when you suggested we were all as Irish as one another; the implication of what you said, surely, being that we're all part of one and the same Irish nation.

Also, just one more question; is your idea of Irishness a national identity on its own, separate terms or do you consider your particular idea of Irishness to be a sub-set, if you will, of your sense of Britishness?

As I see things, there is the Irish nation as channelled through the modern Irish state. Or maybe it's the Irish Nation, even. ;) This amounts to a civic or legal recognition of Irishness. Then comes the "state of mind" - the sense of Irish ethnicity or cultural heritage - as manifested by, say, but not necessarily exclusively, by the Irish diaspora around the world. That's a more vague concept, so much more difficult to quantify. And possibly there's something else that, if I'm not mistaken, posits itself as a sub-category of Britishness. I think I would actually have a bit of difficulty viewing that as Irish at all, which is why "Northern Irish" or something like that might be more accurate a description. In my opinion, of course.


As far as I know, I've never met him at a game or otherwise. I'm not even sure what the acronym stands for. Finn Harps top boy? Fc*king hate the Blues? Faroese have tremendous beers?

"Finn Harps True Blue", I'm guessing. If memory serves me correctly, he uses a Finn Harps jersey as his avatar on this site and his little bio on OWC refers to him supporting "the team west of 'Stute still in business". Clever, but out-dated by a few months.


No. as above I don't care where his Da's from. I'm irritated only really because he played in eight adult internationals for NI before changing his mind.

And what for, say, the French-born Algerian internationals with France under-21 caps? FIFA only recently eased the rules for the direct purpose of benefiting such players.


Really? I assumed you were joking and replied in kind. In practice such training camps would be seen as a provocation by the IFA and NI fans, resulting in extended howls of anguish. Whereas camps in say, Preston, Pontefract or Mansfield, probably wouldn't even be noticed, let alone commented on, in the English media.

Well, I mean, I'd expect the FAI to seek consent from the IFA first if they were going to proceed with such an unusual project, but it's not something I'm taking so seriously that I'd campaign for it as a "solution" or "settlement" to all of this.


There's one basic reason, surely? They don't identify with/ support/ want to play for the NI teams. Apart from the ones who'd already played for those teams, maybe. But ultimately if they don't want to play, you can't force them. Bye.

Of course. I wasn't overlooking that rather crucial one. The IFA seem reluctant to acknowledge it, however, which only allows tension to fester as it gives the inflexibles an unreasonable sense of hope that they might get their way. Unfortunately, Worthington's comments, for example, betray a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of the nationalist mindset when he says things like, "I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to play for their country..." in relation to the likes of Gibson and Duffy. What I am suggesting really is that the IFA should just accept the reality and get on with their own business; maybe even encourage their supporters to do so as well in the interests of everyone getting along all fine and dandy.


Indeed. But is anyone seriously suggesting it? Sounds like a straw man to me, introduced only to prolong/ exaggerate the whole sorry mess.

No seriousness intended in the slightest with that proposal, nor was I trying to suggest that anyone had been arguing for it. Of course there's no indication that anything of the sort might happen, but, say, for the sake of argument, if a few hundred nationalist players decided to switch overnight and the IFA kicked up enough of a fuss about it to have the FAI feel guilty enough or something to agree to sanction no further switches. That would amount to a threshold or upper cap system, in essence, which I believe would be thoroughly unfair. It was just another way of me saying that, under all circumstances, all northern-born Irish nationals must be equally entitled to represent Ireland, save for maybe an exception like having played for Northern Ireland into adulthood or something, as you propose. But generally, if something's right in principle for one case, it logically follows that it's right for all cases. Therefore, appeals to halt the practice because a stream might turn into a torrent are logically void. The practice is either wrong in the first place or it isn't.


Agreed, good luck with that. Although of course they might edit or truncate it. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the Sunday Business Post about some aspect of the Peace Procession, and persuaded my mate (a sub-editor on the paper) to ensure it appeared in print. In passing, I chided their editorial policy of invariably describing Northern Ireland as "the North". Which of course then appeared in print as "Please stop referring to the North as the North, it's childish".

Ha, I'd be wary of having my thoughts on the matter butchered and misrepresented. I wonder how much discretion they'd take to censor/amend it... Presumably, they'll do what they like with it. They don't have to even publish it after all. Nevertheless, I might work the post into a letter format and e-mail them later just to see what becomes of it. Could be an interesting experiment in itself. ;)


In the 1950s the FAI went to FIFA to stop the IFA from picking southern born players. There was most likely a gentleman's agreement between the 2 associaitions agreed but that is long since forgotten.

Any idea when it would have ceased to apply and what might have prompted this? I've mentioned this already during my earlier exchanges with 'EalingGreen', and I don't know if you saw what I'd written, but, from what I understand, the "gentlemen's agreement" appeared to be completely one-sided in that it didn't seem to bind the IFA with any responsibilities or restrictions given the fact FIFA had already halted their practice of calling up players born south of the border in 1950. To me, the GFA seems to represent a possible turning point - in mindset at least - although maybe I'm way off, it's timing was pure coincidental and the initiating of sanctioning player switches was due more to Brian Kerr's astuteness at the time, as mentioned. Although, I find it hard to imagine that the FAI would have been pig ignorant to the situation until Kerr came along. I know we're talking about the FAI here, but could that really have been at all possible? Cheers for the information again, by the way. Interesting stuff.

[Gather round]

doesn't that amount to an explicit acknowledgement of a distinction you were previously denying when you suggested we were all as Irish as one another; the implication of what you said, surely, being that we're all part of one and the same Irish nation

It only appears implicitly thus to you, because you won't/ can't accept that there are two Irish nations, both of which are equally Irish. Whereas to me this seems self-evident from lifelong experience.


Also, just one more question; is your idea of Irishness a national identity on its own, separate terms or do you consider your particular idea of Irishness to be a sub-set, if you will, of your sense of Britishness?

I thnk of myself as 100% British and 100% Irish. They don't contradict, neither is a sub-set of the other, neither dominates my sense of identity. Not sure if that fully answers your question?


And possibly there's something else that, if I'm not mistaken, posits itself as a sub-category of Britishness. I think I would actually have a bit of difficulty viewing that as Irish at all, which is why "Northern Irish" or something like that might be more accurate a description. In my opinion, of course


You are mistaken- see above, I don't recognise one as a sub-set of the other. As far as I can make out, your difficulty follows from the ingrained sense that one Irishness isn't merely different, but superior to the other. Northern Irish is quite accurate as you say, but it isn't any MORE acurate than Irish as a description of me.



And what for, say, the French-born Algerian internationals with France under-21 caps? FIFA only recently eased the rules for the direct purpose of benefiting such players

The same, I'm consistent. I don't think FIFA should have changed the rules, nor that French U-21 internationals should then be able to play for Algeria. In practice, I suspect few in France were bothered, but if the trade had been the other way, the Algerians might have been. If Zidane had been capped by France after Algeria, say.


Unfortunately, Worthington's comments, for example, betray a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of the nationalist mindset

I can see that. Without wanting to sound like Peter Mandelson or compare the IFA to the West Wing or something, Nige and Dogbum should keep their comments to the usual post-match cliches. Leave more fraught issues to a press spokesman. Incidentally, isn't Worthington closely related to Brendan Rodgers, who presumably could have advised him as you have?


say, for the sake of argument, if a few hundred nationalist players decided to switch overnight and the IFA kicked up enough of a fuss about it to have the FAI feel guilty enough or something to agree to sanction no further switches

Heh. A few hundred might be spreading the talent pool a bit thinly. If every nationalist professional footballer from Northern Ireland simply refused to play (what your notional example really means, since clearly they aren't all going to challenge for places in the Republic's teams), I imagine the FAI would simply pick the best ones and ignore the others. While the IFA would sulk and maybe scale down aspirations to staying ahead of Estonia rather than challenging Serbia. I can't see that any quota could apply, other than the practical one of there only being 11 places available in any football team.

[janeymac]

GR - a couple of questions for you!

1) What are the differences between the two Irish nations
2) Can you give me an example of another place/country that is in a similar situation (for example, are there two Korean nations sharing the same peninsula?)
3) which Irish nation does Darren Gibson belong to?

[The Fly]

It only appears implicitly thus to you, because you won't/ can't accept that there are two Irish nations, both of which are equally Irish. Whereas to me this seems self-evident from lifelong experience.


Firstly, apologies for interjecting.

Secondly, there is only one internationally recognised Irish nation, that being the Republic of Ireland, or Ireland - to give it it's official title. Northern Ireland is not internationally recognised as a nation. It is a constituent part of the United Kingdom, which is, a nation.

Thirdly, whilst you may perceive Northern Ireland to be a nation, and are perfectly entitled to do so, by the commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a nation - it isn't one!

[Charlie Darwin]

You're confusing nation with state. Northern Ireland would be accepted as a nation by most or all definitions, but it's not a nationstate in the sense that the Republic is.

[The Fly]

You're confusing nation with state. Northern Ireland would be accepted as a nation by most or all definitions, but it's not a nationstate in the sense that the Republic is.

That's not correct. A nation, by common definition, is 'a group of people who share a common history, culture, ethnic origin and language, often possessing or seeking its own government.' A 'state' can be used to refer to the government of a nation or country, or, the territory, or one of the territories, of a government.

The term 'nationstate', is used specifically to refer to a sovereign state where the geographic boundaries of the political state, and that of the native ethnic population, largely coincide, thus creating a sovereign entity with a largely homogeneous group of people, who share a feeling of common nationality.

However.....I do appreciate, that in casual language, all of these terms have become somewhat interchangeable. That being said, Northern Ireland, whilst being equally Irish as GR pointed out, is still, not a nation.

[Charlie Darwin]

That's not correct. A nation, by common definition, is 'a group of people who share a common history, culture, ethnic origin and language, often possessing or seeking its own government.'
How is that not what I just said?

[The Fly]

You stated that Northern Ireland would be a accepted as a nation by 'most or all definitions,' I simply provided evidence to the contrary.

[Charlie Darwin]

I'm really confused now. Which of those doesn't Northern Ireland fall under?

[DannyInvincible]

It only appears implicitly thus to you, because you won't/ can't accept that there are two Irish nations, both of which are equally Irish. Whereas to me this seems self-evident from lifelong experience.

I'll hold judgment and await your response to 'janeymac'.


In practice, I suspect few in France were bothered, but if the trade had been the other way, the Algerians might have been. If Zidane had been capped by France after Algeria, say.

This is true, although I don't think you can have one rule for one and another rule for another. But, you're sworn to consistency so you're pretty much saying that anyway.


I can see that. Without wanting to sound like Peter Mandelson or compare the IFA to the West Wing or something, Nige and Dogbum should keep their comments to the usual post-match cliches. Leave more fraught issues to a press spokesman.

Certainly. I similarly cringe when I open an article to find Delaney's latest on matters.


Incidentally, isn't Worthington closely related to Brendan Rodgers, who presumably could have advised him as you have?

Wasn't aware of who Brendan Rodgers actually was, but I'm sure Worthington could have, assuming you're referring to the decision of his son to play for Ireland. Obviously Worthington's not a family man either so; something else to hold against him then... :p


I can't see that any quota could apply, other than the practical one of there only being 11 places available in any football team.

This is true and will probably ensure that the system will keep itself in check, if you will. That's a counter-argument to the over-the-top "opening of the floodgates" claim.


2) Can you give me an example of another place/country that is in a similar situation (for example, are there two Korean nations sharing the same peninsula?)

The Korean example is an interesting one as the populations of the two states, to the best of my knowledge, are generally viewed together as being culturally, ethnically and linguistically homogeneous - to almost an extreme, especially the rather isolated population of North Korea - and, thus, are commonly viewed as being part of the one Korean nation. The two distinct states appear to exist in direct "competition" with one another as counter-claimants to the concept of nation-statehood in that both claim to be the rightful representative of or channel for the Korean nation.


Northern Ireland would be accepted as a nation by most or all definitions

You're correct in that it's certainly not a nation-state, but even the notion that it represents a nation is open to severe challenge. Northern Ireland is split right down the middle by two groups who view themselves as politically distinct (one sees its national interests channelled through the Irish state, while the other see its interests channelled through the British state), religiously distinct (along Catholic and Protestant lines), linguistically distinct (at least, historically, between Irish/Gaelic speakers and English speakers; maybe even Ulster-Scots speakers, to be generous) and culturally distinct (both celebrate different folklore, literature, art, historical references, music, et cetera). I would suggest there is an element of ethnic difference there too; on the one side you have Gaelic and Celtic racial consciousness while the other "homogeneous" group views itself in Scots and Anglo terms, if I'm not mistaken. How accurate these self-portraits actually are and how genuine any genetic difference is is open to question given the significant genetic cross-over on these islands. The majority of the Irish population possess more in common genetically with the Basque people than any strictly Celtic people, for example. But how one could consider an entity such as Northern Ireland as a nation is puzzling to me. Unless you're referring to Northern Ireland as the nation of people who view themselves as distinct from what is commonly accepted as the Irish nation; with the former aforementioned group in each instance above falling under that "Irish nation" umbrella.

[Charlie Darwin]

You're correct in that it's certainly not a nation-state, but even the notion that it represents a nation is open to severe challenge. Northern Ireland is split right down the middle by two groups who view themselves as politically distinct (one sees its national interests channelled through the Irish state, while the other see its interests channelled through the British state), religiously distinct (along Catholic and Protestant lines), linguistically distinct (at least, historically, between Irish/Gaelic speakers and English speakers; maybe even Ulster-Scots speakers, to be generous) and culturally distinct (both celebrate different folklore, literature, art, historical references, music, et cetera). I would suggest there is an element of ethnic difference there too; on the one side you have Gaelic and Celtic racial consciousness while the other "homogeneous" group views itself in Scots and Anglo terms, if I'm not mistaken. How accurate these self-portraits actually are and how genuine any genetic difference is is open to question given the significant genetic cross-over on these islands. The majority of the Irish population possess more in common genetically with the Basque people than any strictly Celtic people, for example. But how one could consider an entity such as Northern Ireland as a nation is puzzling to me. Unless you're referring to Northern Ireland as the nation of people who view themselves as distinct from what is commonly accepted as the Irish nation; with the former aforementioned group in each instance above falling under that "Irish nation" umbrella.
Well, that's the core problem - in order to define a nation you have to assign objective characteristics to something that's very subjective on a personal level.

You're right to point out the internal differences, but those exist almost everywhere, though rarely to such extremes. Try to think of it from the perspective of somebody who's neither Irish nor British: what separates NI people from ROI people and from mainland British people?

They do have a unique shared history; they do have a unique linguistic background (there are certain words and phrases that can mark you out as being from one community, but again it's a unique situation); they do have a distinct culture (where else in the world do two fractious communities make a point of walking down each other's streets in fancy dress?); there are ethnic similarities and differences, but those are relatively unimportant in this part of the world.

It's not a perfect science - social sciences never are - but the essential point which Gather Round has skirted around is that nationality is not a zero-sum game. He can be British and Irish and Northern Irish and those can all be legitimate identities because they are all clearly distinct from one another. Of the three, I'd argue that Northern Irish is probably the most legitimate for people born north of the border, but I'm sure plenty would disagree.

I'd also take issue with your point about political preferences: does voting for Sinn Fein really indicate that a person sees his interests channeled through the Irish state? In the current context, it could be argued that a Catholic voting for Sinn Fein merely wants to see his community's day-to-day interests represented on an equitable basis.

[DannyInvincible]

I'd also take issue with your point about political preferences: does voting for Sinn Fein really indicate that a person sees his interests channeled through the Irish state? In the current context, it could be argued that a Catholic voting for Sinn Fein merely wants to see his community's day-to-day interests represented on an equitable basis.

I suppose it's hard to know what exactly it indicates without asking them for specifics as to their reasoning, but there's probably a fair amount of truth in what you say. You'll understand I was speaking in very general terms, as you find yourself having to when dealing with the social sciences, culture and group patterns/behaviour. I probably was looking at it on a more long-term basis as well where it is generally recognised that the nationalist community sees its future in joining up with the Irish state some day. Whether it's realistic or not, it's the general aspiration.

Edit to add: It also happens to be Sinn Féin's raison d'être, of which surely all their voters will undoubtedly be very aware. But that's not to reject your point. I acknowledge that for some, a vote for Sinn Féin simply amounts to a vote for day-to-day nationalist interests, rather than being as part of a long-term strategy or whatever you'd want to call it.

[The Fly]

Well, that's the core problem - in order to define a nation you have to assign objective characteristics to something that's very subjective on a personal level.


Those 'objective characteristics,' are what have become, the commonly accepted determinants of nationhood. If anything else, as there is little or no aspiration to Northern Irish nationhood from within Northern Ireland, one can say with confidence that it is not a nation. To add further foundation to this, the percentage of the population in Northern Ireland, claiming or professing a 'Northern Irish' identity has remained historically low.



They do have a unique shared history;


Could you provide further explanation for this Charlie?



they do have a unique linguistic background (there are certain words and phrases that can mark you out as being from one community, but again it's a unique situation)


You are referring to slang, not language, in the above reply.

Again, Northern Ireland does not have it's own distinct, unique, indigenous language. There is no Northern Irish language, which stands direct in contrast to the other three constituent parts that make up the United Kingdom.



; they do have a distinct culture (where else in the world do two fractious communities make a point of walking down each other's streets in fancy dress?); there are ethnic similarities and differences, but those are relatively unimportant in this part of the world.


Despite protestations from some quarters, the orange tradition does provide Northern Ireland with a cultural aspect almost unique to itself, regardless of how divisive it may be.

I do feel though, that one would struggle to name many further cultural traditions in addition to 'orangeism.'

I do also have to point out a significant inaccuracy in your post, and state that it is only one community that makes a point of marching down the other's streets in fancy dress. (Unless you are referring to a gay pride march! ;))



It's not a perfect science - social sciences never are - but the essential point which Gather Round has skirted around is that nationality is not a zero-sum game. He can be British and Irish and Northern Irish and those can all be legitimate identities because they are all clearly distinct from one another.


I agree. 'Gather Round', or anyone else for that matter, is perfectly entitled to profess any identity they so wish, whether that be Irish, British, Northern Irish or Jedi Knight.



Of the three, I'd argue that Northern Irish is probably the most legitimate for people born north of the border, but I'm sure plenty would disagree.


Not that anyone is strictly bound by it, but I do find it funny that the Good Friday Agreement makes no mention of either a Northern Irish nationality, or identity, in regards to the constitutional issues it addresses:

Constitutional Issues

The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish
Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-
Irish Agreement, they will:

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to
identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they
may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both
British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would
not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

[DannyInvincible]

I do feel though, that one would struggle to name any further cultural traditions in addition to 'orangeism.'

What about the art of painting?

http://nezumi.dumousseau.free.fr/img5/belf04.jpg

[gspain]

Any idea when it would have ceased to apply and what might have prompted this? I've mentioned this already during my earlier exchanges with 'EalingGreen', and I don't know if you saw what I'd written, but, from what I understand, the "gentlemen's agreement" appeared to be completely one-sided in that it didn't seem to bind the IFA with any responsibilities or restrictions given the fact FIFA had already halted their practice of calling up players born south of the border in 1950. To me, the GFA seems to represent a possible turning point - in mindset at least - although maybe I'm way off, it's timing was pure coincidental and the initiating of sanctioning player switches was due more to Brian Kerr's astuteness at the time, as mentioned. Although, I find it hard to imagine that the FAI would have been pig ignorant to the situation until Kerr came along. I know we're talking about the FAI here, but could that really have been at all possible? Cheers for the information again, by the way. Interesting stuff.

Info is scarce and anything I have heard is via chats and hearsay. However it is likely something was agreed.

We had 2 big disputes with the IFA in the early 50's. The first over the IFA picking an "All Ireland" side and the 2nd over the name Ireland. At
some stage an official from each association (most likely the presidents) shook hands on a "gentleman's agreement" to pick players only
from each other's terrirtory. The granny or even the parentage rule wasn't in vogue then and Shay Brennan circa 1965 became the
first player to play for us under the parentage rule.

Such an agreement was probably quickly forgotten and didn't apply in the 60's and 70's as the IFA lost interest in picking southern players.

The IFA in that period would have been much more powerful and influential in World Football. They had a seat on the Internatioanl Board that governs the laws of the game
(still have but I think FIFA call the shots now) a rotating Vice president of FIFA and were more successful than us for most of the period up until 1986. They also had
annual games with England and Scotland up until 1984 which were big events. It would have been seen as more presitgous to play for NI then.

NI born players would have been eligible for us from the 60's. In some ways it is a surprise that some of the better NI born players in the LOI at the time weren't
capped as they didn't get in the NI side but we capped much more domestic players then it seems (an observation of mine and if anyone wants to do the maths
and prove me right or wrong go ahead). However in reality then from a nationalist perspective there were 2 partitionist teams on the island (this was a
regular GAA jibe) and players chose the one they were born into and where they played their football. I'm not aware of anyone approaching or even claiming
they approached the FAI from a NI background until Alan Kernaghan (appreciate English born but grew up in NI). If they had I don't know what would
have happened.

Jack was the first manager we had to aggressively target non Irish born players and use the parentage and granny rule. We also then became much
more successful than NI.

I think any GA is long since forgotten as opposed to have been broken but it depends on your perspective I suppose.

I still don't believe the FAI are scouting or approaching NI players - the Brian Kerr call to Chris Baird is the only credible evidence I've seen (Chris claimed it and Brian
didn't confirm or deny it I understand). I know it is a very sensitive topic in the FAI but I think they are dead right to pick any players who want to play for
us and are eligible. They are very strong on the line that the player must make the first approach whereas approaching the likes of Jamie O'Hara et al is seen
as fair game.

[ifk101]

I still don't believe the FAI are scouting or approaching NI players - the Brian Kerr call to Chris Baird is the only credible evidence I've seen (Chris claimed it and Brian
didn't confirm or deny it I understand). I know it is a very sensitive topic in the FAI but I think they are dead right to pick any players who want to play for
us and are eligible. They are very strong on the line that the player must make the first approach whereas approaching the likes of Jamie O'Hara et al is seen
as fair game.

Brian Kerr was quite active in approaching/ scouting NI born players to the point that an understanding was reached between the FAI and IFA that neither association would attempt to influence players on which team they lined out for. In other words, if NI born players wanted to play for us, they needed to make the first contact with the FAI rather than vice versa.

[co. down green]

To me, the GFA seems to represent a possible turning point - in mindset at least - although maybe I'm way off, it's timing was pure coincidental and the initiating of sanctioning player switches was due more to Brian Kerr's astuteness at the time, as mentioned. Although, I find it hard to imagine that the FAI would have been pig ignorant to the situation until Kerr came along. I know we're talking about the FAI here, but could that really have been at all possible? .

It think the FAI found it impossible to continue ignoring/blocking the growing number of requests from six county born players who wanted to play for Ireland and it predates the Good Friday Agreement in 1988 and possibly also the appointment of Brian Kerr as technical director of our underage teams.( I think that was in December 96 when Kerr left Pats). I'm fairly sure that Mark McKeever was playing for Ireland prior to the appointment of Kerr. I also recall reading an article about the FAI being less than pleased and contacting an Irish coach at Sheffield Wednesday who was encouraging a 17-year-old Derry player John Morrison to declare for Ireland. I think the FAI were wairy of causing confrontation with the IFA at that time but clearly they could not ignore the approaches of increasing numbers of players.

The four Northern born players who represented Ireland prior to the GFA

Ger Crossley from Belfast made his Ireland u16 debut in 1996 and progressed through the underage ranks, He played for the U16s in the 1996 European Championships in Austria, and went on to the win the UEFA title two years later in Cyprus alongside Robbie Keane and Damien Duff. He was called into Mick McCarthy's squad for the senior friendly against Mexico in `98.

Ger Doherty from derry was the Ireland u18 keeper in 1997.

Mark McKeever from Derry made his Ireland debut in 1995 and progressed to u21 level.

Tony Shields from Derry made his Ireland u18 debut in 1997. He went on to be capped at u19 and u21 level.

Obviously other guys followed post GFA like Andy Kilmartin, Brian Lagan,Saul Deeny, Nel McCafferty, Henry McStay etc.....

The ignorant and insular commemts of IFA personnel around the time probably only encouraged more players to opt for Ireland rather than the north, with comments like 'it's too easy for people in northern Ireland to obtain Irish passports' & 'they should play for their own country'.

[The Fly]

Would this 'art' not also fall under the banner of what is modern day orangeism?

As you mentioned art, I must also add mural painting to any list of cultural traditions in Northern Ireland.
I will correct my original post by replacing the word 'any,' with 'many.'

[DannyInvincible]

'gspain'; cheers for all that. I found this piece written by Kerr from the Irish Time in March, before our friendly with Brazil at the Emirates:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2010/0302/1224265432025.html

I think I recall it making a bit of a stir at the time as "Duffygate" hysteria must have been at its height, but it mentions something about Kerr's thinking on the matter being influenced by the GFA. Maybe he was using a bit of "journalistic licence", as I'm just noticing 'co. down green' has highlighted a few players who played for us prior to the GFA.


Having selected Henry McStay and Gerry Crossley, both Northern Ireland schoolboy players, for victorious underage teams of the past, and having had early discussions with Darron Gibson about a possible switch to the Republic, I could be accused of hypocrisy – pot calling the kettle black comes to mind. But, what seems to be the Football Association of Ireland’s current recruitment policy is, in my book, wrong.
...
I remember distinctly on the day we won the Oporto tournament in 1998 listening to the signing of the Belfast Agreement and contemplating the possible consequences in football terms. As it proved, the outcome has been seriously damaging for the Irish Football Association now that all Northern Ireland citizens are entitled to an Irish passport and can, therefore, play for the Republic.

I don't think I agree with anything Kerr has to say on the matter, mind. Is he just having a go at the FAI even if it does make him look a bit hypocritical? That's the way it appears.


Brian Kerr was quite active in approaching/ scouting NI born players to the point that an understanding was reached between the FAI and IFA that neither association would attempt to influence players on which team they lined out for. In other words, if NI born players wanted to play for us, they needed to make the first contact with the FAI rather than vice versa.

Well, players born south of the border weren't eligible to play for the north anyway, so, as with the previous gentlemen's agreement, this was a completely one-sided affair in that it didn't bind the IFA to anything. It amounted to a voluntary gesture of good will on the part of the FAI more than anything else. It was agreed in 1999, however. 'EalingGreen' posted up the text from a short article quoting IFA kingpin, Jim Boyce, on the matter a few days ago. I'm not sure which page it is on now as turnover has been relatively brisk in this thread during the past week with the CAS case being last Monday, but it shouldn't be too far back if you missed it and want a look. Essentially, the FAI had agreed that it would continue to choose northern-born Irish nationals if they wanted to play for Ireland, but that it wouldn't make initial contact with these players. Chris Baird seems to be the only instance - documented or made public, at least - where the FAI seems to have been in "breach" of their promise. That's not to say there weren't more instances. For what it's worth, I know that, contrary to the claims of some on OWC, the FAI most certainly did not contact Shane Duffy first. Sean McCaffrey was very reluctant to contact the player despite his obvious interest in wanting to play for Ireland.

Edit: The post featuring the short article on Jim Boyce to which I was referring: http://foot.ie/threads/132063-Should-we-stop-recruiting-NI-players?p=1378270&viewfull=1#post1378270

[co. down green]

'EalingGreen' posted up the text from a short article quoting IFA kingpin, Jim Boyce, on the matter a few days ago.

Jim Boyce was quoted from the same meeting, referred to by EG as saying "It was also stressed that if a player made an approach himself, there was little the IFA could do unless FIFA was to change legilation".

So there was an acceptance by the IFA back in 1999 that players born in the North were fully eligible for Ireland under FIFA rules.

FAI chief executive Bernard O'Byrne is also quoted from the same meeting "Any player that opts to declare for the Republic of Ireland and notifies the FAI of this will be considered for selection."

As far as i'm aware, the FAI have honoured their agreement with the IFA in 1999 and players have to contact the FAI should they wish to make themselves available for selection for Ireland. This was the case with Tony Kane and Michael O'Connor (the 2 players who left the north for the FAI before being tempted back by the IFA) who had to formally inform the FAI by letter of their intention to seek selection for Ireland.

[ifk101]

The below quotes are taken from the Mirror :D in Jan. 1999.


THE FAI and the IFA believe they have strengthened a Gentleman’s Agreement
to kerb the free movement of players between the associations.

Note the wording "strengthened" in the context of what follows below.


They have also agreed that from next season a new cross-border cup competition will be staged between the European entrants of the Irish league and the National League.

The IFA last week admitted it was concerned by the loss of several Northern Ireland born youngsters who were opting to play for the Republic.

After a meeting of soccer's Irish governing bodies in Belfast yesterday, IFA President Jim Boyce said he was "extremely happy," with the outcome of all items on the agenda.

Note Boyce is "extremely happy" after strengthening a supposed Gentleman’s Agreement.


Last week, Derry-born Leeds United player Brian Lagan revealed he'd been asked by an IFA official if his religion had any influence over his decision to join Brian Kerr's under 17 squad and the Republic.

Northern Ireland under 21 manager Roy Millar expressed his concern over the loss of players such as Lagan, Mark Hicks and Gerard Crossley, a Belfast born member of his U18 UEFA UEFA Union of European Football Associations

"The issue of Northern Ireland's eligible players opting to play for the Republic was discussed at length with the FAI," said Boyce.

"It was also stressed that if a player made an approach himself, there was little the FAI could do unless FIFA was to change legislation. That, we accept. But at least we have agreed to notify one another should this happen.''

Note the last three sentences; "there was little the FAI could do" - "that,we accept" - "But at least we have agreed to notify one another should this happen." (Very odd - what about this supposed Gentleman's Agreement from the 1950's that dealt with this issue????? Aren't these comments in conflict with the original and supposed Gentleman's Agreement from the 1950's??? Is this cause for Boyce to be "extremely happy"??? and how does this strengthen the supposed Gentleman's Agreement??? Doesn't this weaken it from an IFA perspective??? After all they are now acceptant that NI born players can represent the FAI - despite being "concerned" about this issue the week before???)


FAI chief executive Bernard O'Byrne claimed there was no bitterness on either side when the matter was discussed.

"There was a very positive atmosphere about this meeting and we look forward to sitting down with the IFA again within the next six months," said O'Byrne.

What? No bitterness despite the FAI supposedly breaking a Gentleman's Agreement dating from the 1950's????


In a statement released last night, the FAI claimed the Association is the "first to recognise the extensive development programme of the IFA and congratulate them on their progress to date.

"The FAI acknowledge that this is a cross-community scheme and undertook to continue its policy of not approaching players born in Northern Ireland for the Republic of Ireland international teams.

Selection

"However, any player that opts to declare for the Republic of Ireland and notifies the FAI of this will be considered for selection."

The letter sent to Brian Lagan by the IFA's recently appointed community relations officer Shane Maguire asked the player if he felt his religion influenced his move.

Lagan claims he was overlooked by the IFA on three occasions.

Boyce admitted that the wording of the letter, exposed on the same day the IFA received a FIFA Fair Play accolade, caused "embarrassment.''

"We admit that it was somewhat naive to have mentioned religion in the letter to Brian Lagan. But I want to stress that there was nothing malicious in the wording.

"Of course we want to know why the player made the move but I will deeply contest anyone who suggests that we (the IFA) are not concerned with religion or politics.

"I would be offended if any player was to accuse me or the association of having a sectarian policy.''

Next season the FAI National League champions and cup winners, will compete in a tournament with the Irish League champions and Irish Cup winners.

Arrangements for the Omagh Trust Fund international at Lansdowne Road on May 29 between Northern Ireland and the Republic were confirmed.

The FAI will allocate an initial 3,400 tickets for distribution through the IFA for the fixture.

[Qwerty]

With the GFA a citizen of NI may declare himself or herself British or Irish and is entitled to dual-citizenship.

If it is the wish of a NI born player to represent Ireland then his or her wish should be honored.

As for recruiting, the FAI for years has recruited English & Scottish born players to play for Ireland, why should they treat the 6 counties any differently?

[DannyInvincible]

As for recruiting, the FAI for years has recruited English & Scottish born players to play for Ireland, why should they treat the 6 counties any differently?

Indeed. It only serves to legitimise the IFA's case.

[seanfhear]

With the GFA a citizen of NI may declare himself or herself British or Irish and is entitled to dual-citizenship.

If it is the wish of a NI born player to represent Ireland then his or her wish should be honored.

As for recruiting, the FAI for years has recruited English & Scottish born players to play for Ireland, why should they treat the 6 counties any differently?So thats that settled then. Short and sweet which everyone can understand. Thanks very much

[ArdeeBhoy]

Once again,props to all who've bothered to drag through the Irish soccer history stats. Must confess to having never heard of Brian Lagan but credit for the details. Once again Brian Kerr doesn't seem to come out again too well but even he and others will probably have to eventually accept the GFA....



It only appears implicitly thus to you, because you won't/ can't accept that there are two Irish nations, both of which are equally Irish. Whereas to me this seems self-evident from lifelong experience.

I thnk of myself as 100% British and 100% Irish. They don't contradict, neither is a sub-set of the other, neither dominates my sense of identity.

Ha Ha.*

There are indeed two nations, one is part of Britain, the other is Ireland, but in no way is this two countries, FFS. Two football teams granted.
And your 'self evident' experience again as confirmed earlier this week, is wholly different from the reality that most unionists don't see themselves as, er, 'Irish' but British!

However only a moron, or possibly an Ulster unionist, would claim to be '100%' * equally as belonging to two different countries.
Do the math. 50%, maybe of each.
Contrary to your assertion, it's entirely contradictory to claim otherwise.


You are mistaken- see above, I don't recognise one as a sub-set of the other. As far as I can make out, your difficulty follows from the ingrained sense that one Irishness isn't merely different, but superior to the other. Northern Irish is quite accurate as you say, but it isn't any MORE acurate than Irish as a description of me.
WTF?

Accepting the dubious (as in not defined in the GFA) premise of 'Northern Irish' as highlighted up thread, it's entirely different in its description from how the 'mainstream' Irish see themselves, particularly when you consider those wish to aspire to this definition who are mainly unionist in outlook.


The same, I'm consistent. I don't think FIFA should have changed the rules, nor that French U-21 internationals should then be able to play for Algeria. In practice, I suspect few in France were bothered, but if the trade had been the other way, the Algerians might have been. If Zidane had been capped by France after Algeria, say.
Except the FIFA Numpties are probably right on this one.
Up until anyone gets a competitive cap, they're "open" to offers if they have dual or more eligibility.
And that opening line there is incredibly pompous in tone, again!


GR - a couple of questions for you!

1) What are the differences between the two Irish nations
2) Can you give me an example of another place/country that is in a similar situation (for example, are there two Korean nations sharing the same peninsula?)
3) which Irish nation does Darren Gibson belong to?

Don't encourage him, Please!
If you haven't worked this out by now....


You're confusing nation with state. Northern Ireland would be accepted as a nation by most or all definitions, but it's not a nationstate in the sense that the Republic is.
If Britain was a federation, it might stand a chance,but 'semi-autonomous region' might be closest. But a 'nation', er, no.
And see GFA's lack of mention on the issue.


What about the art of painting?
http://nezumi.dumousseau.free.fr/img5/belf04.jpg

So not another TH tribute then! Seriously, those clowns could do with a visit to their local B & Q (They have the right colour scheme??) or similar.

Though as Fly mentioned, a discussion of murals would be more pertinent?

[ArdeeBhoy]

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/FOOTBALL-IFA-wait-on-court.6428473.jp

To be fair the comments on there are not as one-sided as you might think.

[gspain]

It think the FAI found it impossible to continue ignoring/blocking the growing number of requests from six county born players who wanted to play for Ireland and it predates the Good Friday Agreement in 1988 and possibly also the appointment of Brian Kerr as technical director of our underage teams.( I think that was in December 96 when Kerr left Pats). I'm fairly sure that Mark McKeever was playing for Ireland prior to the appointment of Kerr. I also recall reading an article about the FAI being less than pleased and contacting an Irish coach at Sheffield Wednesday who was encouraging a 17-year-old Derry player John Morrison to declare for Ireland. I think the FAI were wairy of causing confrontation with the IFA at that time but clearly they could not ignore the approaches of increasing numbers of players.

The four Northern born players who represented Ireland prior to the GFA

Ger Crossley from Belfast made his Ireland u16 debut in 1996 and progressed through the underage ranks, He played for the U16s in the 1996 European Championships in Austria, and went on to the win the UEFA title two years later in Cyprus alongside Robbie Keane and Damien Duff. He was called into Mick McCarthy's squad for the senior friendly against Mexico in `98.

Ger Doherty from derry was the Ireland u18 keeper in 1997.

Mark McKeever from Derry made his Ireland debut in 1995 and progressed to u21 level.

Tony Shields from Derry made his Ireland u18 debut in 1997. He went on to be capped at u19 and u21 level.

Obviously other guys followed post GFA like Andy Kilmartin, Brian Lagan,Saul Deeny, Nel McCafferty, Henry McStay etc.....

The ignorant and insular commemts of IFA personnel around the time probably only encouraged more players to opt for Ireland rather than the north, with comments like 'it's too easy for people in northern Ireland to obtain Irish passports' & 'they should play for their own country'.

Are you aware of anybody the FAI ignored or blocked from NI that wanted to play for the RoI on any grounds other than not being good enough?

[Gather round]

GR - a couple of questions for you!


1) What are the differences between the two Irish nations
2) Can you give me an example of another place/country that is in a similar situation (for example, are there two Korean nations sharing the same peninsula?)
3) which Irish nation does Darren Gibson belong to?


Isn't that a threesome of questions? Anyway,


1) There's an international border between them, ergo they are both separate nations. But they both share the island of Ireland, ergo they are both Irish


2) You've answered your own question, surely? So yes. Of course in international relations no two situations are identical, I'm not claiming an exact (38th) parallel


3) Whichever he prefers. In practical terms, he has a choice of two passports, or to carry both.



Thirdly, whilst you may perceive Northern Ireland to be a nation, and are perfectly entitled to do so, by the commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a nation - it isn't one


I perceive there to be two nations in Ireland, separated by a border. I've never claimed, and don't consider Northern Ireland to be a an independent sovereign nation. It's part of the British nation, which- by obvious dint of including part of Ireland- is also an Irish nation. I doubt this contradicts whatever commonly accepted definition you prefer.


For practical purposes in international football, Northern Ireland counts as a country. I'm not applying that status to any other field where it clearly doesn't apply.



Northern Ireland does not have it's own distinct, unique, indigenous language. There is no Northern Irish language, which stands direct in contrast to the other three constituent parts that make up the United Kingdom


True, but so what? Nor do Austria, Belgium or (arguably) Switzerland. Incidentally, as you probably know Scottish Gaelic is spoken by only about 50,000, or 1% of the population there. It's an endangered language. But if it disappears entirely, there will still be a Scottish nation.



I do feel though, that one would struggle to name many further cultural traditions in addition to 'orangeism'

I'd be quite happy if Orangeism was to disappear, it's an embarrassment. But if it did, Northern Ireland/ Ulster unionists/ Irish Prods would still have a cultural tradition. Even if that overlapped with the British. or the Catholic/ nationalist, or whatever. I think the uniqueness thing is a bit over-rated.



the essential point which Gather Round has skirted around is that nationality is not a zero-sum game. He can be British and Irish and Northern Irish and those can all be legitimate identities because they are all clearly distinct from one another. Of the three, I'd argue that Northern Irish is probably the most legitimate for people born north of the border, but I'm sure plenty would disagree


Indeed. I thought I'd addressed the point head-on, actually. On your second point, why can't they all be equally legitimate? None of them threatens anyone else or their legitimacy, surely?



I think any GA is long since forgotten as opposed to have been broken but it depends on your perspective I suppose


Aye. It's clearly gone, whatever its background, mutual recognition or otherwise. From my perspective, we (NI fans/ the IFA) need deal in future, along the lines I've mentioned repeatedly on this and similar threads. If no such deal proves possible, I expect continued bad feeling- compromising future games between us, or other co-operation- plus likely financial losses.

[ArdeeBhoy]

1) There's an international border between them, ergo they are both separate nations. But they both share the island of Ireland, ergo they are both Irish
I perceive there to be two nations in Ireland, separated by a border. I've never claimed, and don't consider Northern Ireland to be a an independent sovereign nation. It's part of the British nation, which- by obvious dint of including part of Ireland- is also an Irish nation. I doubt this contradicts whatever commonly accepted definition you prefer.
Except that the name of one of those countries makes no reference to the North (or Ireland!), and barely even acknowledges its other constituent parts. So yes, it is contradictory (and wrong) to claim there are two Irish 'nations', two different nations granted though.

.

Nor do Austria, Belgium or (arguably) Switzerland. Incidentally, as you probably know Scottish Gaelic is spoken by only about 50,000, or 1% of the population there. It's an endangered language. But if it disappears entirely, there will still be a Scottish nation.
Not been to Osterreich but met enough Swiss & German people to tell you that Swiss-German is a pretty different language from mainstream Deutsch, the Belgians speak Flemish as a distinct national language which again is different from Dutch and unless all the residents of the Western Isles die off there will always be Scots Gaelic speakers.
And as you should know,the latter of course is an officially recognised regional language.

[osarusan]

two different nations granted though.
Which two nations are you talking about?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Let you work that one out, Mr.O!

[DannyInvincible]

1) There's an international border between them, ergo they are both separate nations. But they both share the island of Ireland, ergo they are both Irish.

A nation is not necessarily synonymous with a state or political unit.

[janeymac]

Isn't that a threesome of questions? Anyway

Ok, a few then!


1) There's an international border between them, ergo they are both separate nations. But they both share the island of Ireland, ergo they are both Irish

2) You've answered your own question, surely? So yes. Of course in international relations no two situations are identical, I'm not claiming an exact (38th) parallel


No, I haven't answered my own question. I would regard the two Korean as the same people superficially divided into two states. I was hoping you would explore other similarly divided people like the division of India & Pakistan (into Hindu & Muslim states) or Cyprus (Turkish / Greek).


3) Whichever he prefers. In practical terms, he has a choice of two passports, or to carry both.

The choice is just an accommodation really. The India division was based on religion and generally has worked within each country (not between them) and of course there are still land disputes over Kasmir. While a lot of people say now what religion you are isn't important - there are huge cultural differences between catholics & protestants which rub off on us and make us different.


True, but so what? Nor do Austria, Belgium or (arguably) Switzerland. Incidentally, as you probably know Scottish Gaelic is spoken by only about 50,000, or 1% of the population there. It's an endangered language. But if it disappears entirely, there will still be a Scottish nation.

With regard to Austria & German speaking the same language and yet are separate countries - I'd guess that most of northern Europe became protestant and southern Europe remained catholic. Bavaria (where the present Pope was born) is still very catholic and from what I've seen, has more in common with (catholic) Austria than its northern neighbours. From being on a couple of skiing holidays in Austria, I was always facinated at how religious the Austrians (from the Tyrol anyway) were - the churches were always full for mass and they are quite conservative.

I wonder when India was being partitioned that seeing how it wasn't working in NI, they just created two muslim states and moved people there. Very painful at the time, but it has worked.

[ArdeeBhoy]

I would regard the two Korean as the same people superficially divided into two states. I was hoping you would explore other similarly divided people like the division of India & Pakistan (into Hindu & Muslim states) or Cyprus (Turkish / Greek).



The choice is just an accommodation really. The India division was based on religion and generally has worked within each country (not between them) and of course there are still land disputes over Kashmir. While a lot of people say now what religion you are isn't important - there are huge cultural differences between catholics & protestants which rub off on us and make us different.


I wonder when India was being partitioned that seeing how it wasn't working in NI, they just created two muslim states and moved people there. Very painful at the time, but it has worked.

Despite having been to Cyprus found there was little evidence or mention of the division,which is also religiously (Orthodox cf. Islam) as well as nationality-based.
Though others probably know far better and to the legitimacy of any Turkish claim, other than just its proximity.

As for India and its 'sub-continent', that's an extremely complex case. Suffice to say that India itself is an amalgamation of 28 smaller countries, now based around an official federation.
The creation of Bangladesh and Pakistan, as you say aren't exactly foolproof as there's still at least a mere 100 million + Muslims in India.
Certainly with Pakistan, it was based on areas where Muslims had a majority but still divided whole states like Gujarat which doesn't sit comfortably personally.
Also would like to see an independent Kashmir, but even assuming India & Pakistan would let this happen, how would any small country feel being a buffer between two nuclear armed nations.

Much of the current situation though was due to past colonization (& then the usual ruthless 'divide-and-rule' policy based on things like religion, of the hapless locals) by the usual suspects.
So at least countries like India and Ireland have a shared experience in this respect.

[Gather round]

A nation is not necessarily synonymous with a state or political unit


Yes. I didn't claim it was. For example in Ireland, a large minority on the Northern side of the political unit border identify quite reasonably with the mainly Southern-based nation. That doesn't contradict that the border is real, nor that many people see themselves as part of an Irish nation different from your Irish nation.



I would regard the two Korean as the same people superficially divided into two states


In 1953, maybe. Not now. I expect the Kim Jong Il regime to collapse in the next few years, but integrating all Koreans into one country after that is likely to be unbeleivably difficult. Imagine the reunification of Germany magnified 10 or 100 times.



I was hoping you would explore other similarly divided people like the division of India & Pakistan (into Hindu & Muslim states) or Cyprus (Turkish / Greek)


India/ Pakistan is too large scale to summarise quickly. I spent a lot of time in Cyprus in the early 80s (my parents were working there); there was a difficult choice, particularly for the Turks. Many wanted general economic prosperity that might have followed from reuniting the country- but more feared losing land, property etc. to previous Greek owners. So the majority of Turks settled for the theoretically independent Kibris (in practice an autonomous region of mainland Turkey). They just didn't want to be part of an etnhic-Greek dominated Cyprus nation.



there are huge cultural differences between catholics & protestants which rub off on us and make us different


Indeed. There are broadly similar (although hugely larger in scale) differences between different branches/ sects/ tribal allegiances of Islam within Pakistan, for example. Many people in that country would disagree with you that the 1940s settlement has generally worked well.



With regard to Austria & German speaking the same language and yet are separate countries


I was merely answering Fly's point that NI has no indigenous unique language (with the implication that it is somehow lesser in status than Wales, Scotland etc). A moment's thought would show other examples in nearby Europe which basically contradict this idea.



Except that the name of one of those countries makes no reference to the North (or Ireland!)


Er, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It couldn't refer more explicitly if it tried.



Swiss-German is a pretty different language from mainstream Deutsch


It's a dialect (of group of related dialects), quite distinct when spoken but usually mutually and easily understandable when written (eg in newspapers).



the Belgians speak Flemish as a distinct national language which again is different from Dutch


They don't, Flemish and Dutch are mutually understood by all speakers of either. They differ as the English spoken in Donegal or Derry may differ from that in Kent or Jersey, but neither is really a dialect.



unless all the residents of the Western Isles die off


If the population of the Western Isles sees its migrating young people failing to pass on the language to their own children- to a greater extent than those youngsters are replaced by incoming migrants- then it's quite likely the language will fade away.

[ifk101]

For example in Ireland, a large minority on the Northern side of the political unit border identify quite reasonably with the mainly Southern-based nation.

You're failing to grasp the concept of nation. A nation isn't define by political borders, geographical locations or places of birth. Hence there's no "mainly Southern-based (Irish) nation".

[Gather round]

You're failing to grasp the concept of nation. A nation isn't define by political borders, geographical locations or places of birth. Hence there's no "mainly Southern-based (Irish) nation"

I've grasped it perfectly well, thanks. I just disagree with your exclusive definition and offer a more inclusive one.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Pomposity Alert! Which must be part of the, er, 'peace dividend' ??
:eek:

Still spot on by DI & ifk.


For example in Ireland, a large minority on the Northern side of the political unit border identify quite reasonably with the mainly Southern-based nation. That doesn't contradict that the border is real, nor that many people see themselves as part of an Irish nation different from your Irish nation.

Except as has been referred to above (and has been a consistent viewpoint), a majority of people in the 'other' "Irish nation", don't see themselves as, er, Irish!



Er, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It couldn't refer more explicitly if it tried.
Except all Brit.govts just use the name 'United Kingdom' in most official documentation and bodies, so they couldn't hide it more explicitly if they tried.
Lol.


It's a dialect (of group of related dialects), quite distinct when spoken but usually mutually and easily understandable when written (eg in newspapers).
Flemish and Dutch are mutually understood by all speakers of either. They differ as the English spoken in Donegal or Derry may differ from that in Kent or Jersey, but neither is really a dialect.
So now you know better than native Swiss (& Germans) or Flemish?? Well fancy that!!


If the population of the Western Isles sees its migrating young people failing to pass on the language to their own children- to a greater extent than those youngsters are replaced by incoming migrants- then it's quite likely the language will fade away.
In 200 years maybe?
Anyway, perhaps you should move there, to boost the population and, er, get in touch with your roots!
;)

[dantheman]

Without ignoring the other posts, I would highlight a theme that has been repeated. Its impossible to be 100% irish and 100% British.
That simply makes no sense. In that case I'm 200% irish!

As regards this two Irish nations, to which I disagree, then I would argue that the lads who are "defecting" identify with the same Irish nation as their new team-mates.
As regards this secondary Irish nation, Northern Ireland, it does not portray any of the trappings of an irish nation if you were to bounce down to Windsor Park. It must be concluded that it is a British nation, located in Ireland. The reasons why it is here are well-noted.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Without ignoring the other posts, I would highlight a theme that has been repeated. Its impossible to be 100% Irish and 100% British.
That simply makes no sense. In that case I'm 200% Irish!

Well repeated by only one person, probably.
But the principle stands;the education system in certain parts of the world needs to address the mathematical(?) issue that assuming an entity is 100% in total, it can therefore not be more!
Lol.

Still as ever, you will notice the lack of acknowledgement of the point when it was raised above.....
So no change there.

[Gather round]

Its impossible to be 100% irish and 100% British

It's perfectly possible. Neither contradicts nor compromises the other. As Charlie Darwin put it, nationality isn't a zero sum game.


In that case I'm 200% irish!

Live and let live, baby. Be what you wanna do, etc. Of course in the real World, you can't be more Irish than I am, as we're both 100% Irish.


As regards this secondary Irish nation, Northern Ireland, it does not portray any of the trappings of an irish nation if you were to bounce down to Windsor Park. It must be concluded that it is a British nation, located in Ireland. The reasons why it is here are well-noted

Given that it's

a) obviously in Ireland
b) the HQ of an Irish international football side

its Irishness is obvious, however much you dislike the trappings.

[ArdeeBhoy]

It's perfectly possible. Neither contradicts nor compromises the other. As Charlie Darwin put it, nationality isn't a zero sum game.
Of course in the real World, you can't be more Irish than I am, as we're both 100% Irish*.


Fantasy bubble alert!
Yes if you say so, of course you are '200%', though I suppose being 'two' entities couldn't really add up to zero.
;)

*But if the reality was to acknowledge you are no longer British, that would be a start. Would that be it was ever universal!


Given that it's

a) obviously in Ireland
b) the HQ of an Irish international football side

its Irishness is obvious, however much you dislike the trappings.
Not withstanding certain flags of other countries (& don't mean the North
or anything Irish) in the proximity.

[dantheman]

It's perfectly possible. Neither contradicts nor compromises the other. As Charlie Darwin put it, nationality isn't a zero sum game.
No its not a zero sum game, its a 100% sum game. 100%=whole, one complete unit. Really basic stuff. Did you pass the 11+?

Would you consider a transsexual to be 100% man and 100 woman?

Live and let live, baby. Be what you wanna do, etc. Of course in the real World, you can't be more Irish than I am, as we're both 100% Irish.
We're both Irish, the rest of your sentence is of no importance

Given that it's
a) obviously in Ireland
b) the HQ of an Irish international football side

its Irishness is obvious, however much you dislike the trappings.
a) There is nothing obviously in Ireland about the Village
b) Its the headquarters of a BRITISH international side (one of 4, the UK gets 3 more than most other European countries). They CHOOSE to play the anthem of the UK, they are a BRITISH side. The could play NI specific anthem, and then you may have some leeway, but they don't.

They CHOOSE to be BRITISH :confused:

Doh :frown: