Eligibility Rules, Okay

[Fixer82]

"Talk of Home Rule"
(Man, are we off-topic).

No, it was talk.
We'd been promised Home Rule for years and it was never coming.
There was always a reason to put it off. Promises, promises.
Just like they made promises in the Treaty and then gerrymandered the North to ensure a Protestant majority.

As for a commemoration, I'd hate a massive 1966-like military parade.
I think it should be a celebration, not a sombre affair. A cultural celebration I think would be very appropriate considering the poets and playwrights that were involved in the Rising itself.
Maybe highlighting plays on the Rising in the Abbey, Music in the NCH, Movies etc etc.
Something that will nod a respectful cap to it while also educating the younger generation about what happened and why it was so important.

Just my two cents on the matter

[SkStu]

I plan to watch nothing but "Michael Collins", "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" and "In The Name of The Father" on repeat all through 2014.

I'll just check on here for how we do in the World Cup.

[Gather round]

No, it was talk.
We'd been promised Home Rule for years and it was never coming. There was always a reason to put it off. Promises, promises

It was enacted by the British Parliament in 1914 suspended until the end of the War.


Just like they made promises in the Treaty and then gerrymandered the North to ensure a Protestant majority

What promises did the British break? The Treaty provided for a Boundary Commission, Cosgrave's Government accepted its proposal for no change in 1925.

What became NI obviously had and has a unionist majority; any smaller area would clearly have had a larger such majority; the priority was clearly to maximise the area covered rather than the size of the majority. Gerrymandering doesn't apply- the drawing of the border isn't comparable to that of Derry's local government areas, for example.


As for a commemoration, I'd hate a massive 1966-like military parade

Is that even possible? I once saw the entire Irish Army parade down Aungier Street in central Dublin, took about ten minutes.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Hmm, clearly an April Fool...
;)

[Fixer82]

It was enacted by the British Parliament in 1914 suspended until the end of the War.


It never would have come with the threat of civil war from Edward Carson and the UVF

[Gather round]

[Home Rule] never would have come with the threat of civil war from Edward Carson and the UVF

Between 1886 and 1914 British Governments made three attempts to enact Home Rule for Ireland. Hardly suggests they were just stringing Irish nationalists along, does it?

Have you decided yet which promises the British broke after the Treaty?

[NeverFeltBetter]

It never would have come with the threat of civil war from Edward Carson and the UVF

More likely they would have just altered it to fit with a partition plan, like they tried to do with the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 (which was basically Home Rule) and the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 (which was basically just Home Rule with an Army).

[Fixer82]

There was pressure from the 1800s on successive British governments to grant Home Rule.
Parnell and the Land League, Redmond etc. dedicated themselves to the cause of Home Rule.
It did seem as if Gladstone was one Prime Minister who was in favour but other things got in the way of that. When the Great War came about it was conveniently postponed. Nationalists were told 'Fight for 'small nations' and we'll discuss the Home Rule thing when this all dies down'.
You can understand why some Republicans didn't really buy this.

But I don't think it would've been granted with the threat of Carson and the UVF.
The Unionists had many friends in London. The Nationalists had few sympathisers that felt strongly enough to put their political necks on the line.

And yes, after the Government of Ireland Act, the Unionists in power in Belfast, who were very defensive minded, gerrymandered electoral borders to give themselves a political majority and it became a pretty unjust little statelet.
More unjust to Catholics than most of the actual island of Britain

[Fixer82]

What promises did the British break? The Treaty provided for a Boundary Commission, Cosgrave's Government accepted its proposal for no change in 1925.
.

That was inarticulation on my part

[Gather round]

When the Great War came about [Home Rule] was conveniently postponed. Nationalists were told 'Fight for 'small nations' and we'll discuss the Home Rule thing when this all dies down'. You can understand why some Republicans didn't really buy this

Of course I understand some Republicans' cynicism at the time, but suggesting that the Great War was 'convenient' is a bit crass, don't ye think?


And yes, after the Government of Ireland Act, the Unionists in power in Belfast, who were very defensive minded, gerrymandered electoral borders to give themselves a political majority and it became a pretty unjust little statelet. More unjust to Catholics than most of the actual island of Britain

Unionists already had a political majority in Northern Ireland when it was first created- in itself following from the Unionist population in Ireland as a whole being localised in Ulster, particularly close to Belfast. So they didn't need to gerrymander such a majority. There is actually very little evidence that parliamentary constituency boundaries were drawn to discriminate against Nationalists. Local government, partic. in Derry was gerrymandered, as I suggested above.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Have you decided yet which promises the British broke after the Treaty?
They could have respected the result of their own 1918 election when the majority of the island voted for independence parties.

Their own insecurity and control freakery led to the very gerrymandering you deny, on the basis of accommodating a belligerent minority threatening force thus perpetuating the problem for decades after, maybe into infinity...

[Crosby87]

What is gerrymandering? It sounds....icky.

[nigel-harps1954]

It was named after Gerry Armstrong for one reason or another.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Or Gerry after it?

[SkStu]

It comes from a failed Coca-Cola flavour from the early 20th Century. Cherry Mandarine. In norn iron-speak it sounded a lot like gerrymandering and the coke prototypes were tested predominantly on the officers of the army stationed along the border at the time.

[Crosby87]

Oh, you mean Claonroinnt. Am i the only one who speaks Irish anymore? So disappointing....

[ArdeeBhoy]

It comes from a failed Coca-Cola flavour from the early 20th Century. Cherry Mandarine. In norn iron-speak it sounded a lot like gerrymandering and the coke prototypes were tested predominantly on the officers of the army stationed along the border at the time.

If only.

[Fixer82]

Oh, you mean Claonroinnt. Am i the only one who speaks Irish anymore? So disappointing....

Níl tú an t-aon Gaeilgeóir anseo.
Does Gather round speak Ulster Scots I wonder (ie English with a heavy Northie accent)?

[nigel-harps1954]

Sure half of Donegal speak practically Ulster Scots.

Also, I'd imagine there's a lot of closet Irish speakers here.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Does Gather round speak Ulster Scots I wonder (ie English with a heavy Northie accent)?

It only becomes, erm, heavy, when he's fair drunk. Otherwise it's quite a soft one.
:eek:

[SolitudeRed]

The British did to be fair try to put safeguards in place to protect the minority community in the North such as PR being used in the Stormont elections but Unionists quickly decided to dismantle these in order to tighten their grip on Stormont the Brits did nothing to stop this and just ignored such developments and NI became in effect a one party state for 50 years and there were marked by institutionalised sectarianism within the Government and also in wider society such as the school system and the sectarianism seemed to have become the defining characteristic of the North, of course all this came back to bite Britain in the ass several decades later.

[Gather round]

They could have respected the result of their own 1918 election when the majority of the island voted for independence parties

You do realise the Treaty was years after the 1918 Election?


Their own insecurity and control freakery led to the very gerrymandering you deny, on the basis of accommodating a belligerent minority threatening force thus perpetuating the problem for decades after, maybe into infinity...

Did you miss the bit where I described the gerrymandering in NI local government then?

So obviously I only 'denied' it in the sense that you think anything Ulster unionism or their British government supporters do is gerrymandering pretty much by definition.


Does Gather round speak Ulster Scots I wonder (ie English with a heavy Northie accent)?

No, I speak more German or Italian than Ullans.


The British did to be fair try to put safeguards in place to protect the minority community in the North such as PR being used in the Stormont elections

Indeed. Although the effect of ending PR tended to disadvantage smaller parties and independents rather than Nationalists.


NI became in effect a one party state for 50 years and there were marked by institutionalised sectarianism...in wider society such as the school system

Are you blaming Unionist discrimination, or Britain ignoring it, for institutionalised sectarianism in education?

Anyway, here's an academic article by John Whyte summing up research on discrimination:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except the reason for the Treaty was the 1918 election, just four years earlier.

And of course the unionists/Brits gerrymandered, otherwise the North wouldn't exist. Or for that matter, the FAI!

[DannyInvincible]

Did you miss the bit where I described the gerrymandering in NI local government then?

So obviously I only 'denied' it in the sense that you think anything Ulster unionism or their British government supporters do is gerrymandering pretty much by definition.

AB is arguing that the construction of the northern statelet itself, rather than merely the manipulation of certain electoral boundaries within it post-inception, was an example of gerrymandering, or that NI is essentially a gerrymander.

I'm not sure if "gerrymandering" is the correct academic term to use when describing the construction of a new statelet under such circumstances - perhaps it can be - but in the sense that the new statelet was created by wittingly balancing the desire for an area of territory big enough to sustain itself, or at least, to provide as much economic viability as was possible, with the assurance of seemingly-democratic unionist control, via a newly-created majority, over the jurisdiction and its estranged minority, you could certainly draw valid parallels between NI's construction and the concept of gerrymandering as it is commonly understood.

[Gather round]

I'm not sure if "gerrymandering" is the correct academic term to use

I am sure. It isn't.


AB is arguing that the construction of the northern statelet itself, rather than merely the manipulation of certain electoral boundaries within it post-inception, was an example of gerrymandering, or that NI is essentially a gerrymander

I know, but it's a silly argument. Either you accept self-determination as the first principle- in which case a large, localised Unionist population can reasonably claim it- or you don't. In that case what are you left with? Tyranny of the majority. Or some foundation-myth aspiration to it ;)


You could certainly draw valid parallels between NI's construction and the concept of gerrymandering as it is commonly understood

Only if you, like AB, choose to use gerrymander as a generalised term of criticism/ abuse, like fascism, say. Gerrymandering as commonly understood means distorting electoral boundaries, quotas etc. So local government in Derry was such; ditto the city ending up on the 'wrong' side of the border; ditto Fianna Fail increasing the number of three-seaters in the South to disadvantage smaller parties. But the actual border per se isn't a gerrymander.

Anyway, here's a simple illustration of how a gerrymander can work. The 15(00,000) electors are to be organised into three constituencies: moving the boundaries can produce two or zero red majorities even though any proportional system would give them one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Gerrymandering_9-6.png

[DannyInvincible]

I know, but it's a silly argument. Either you accept self-determination as the first principle- in which case a large, localised Unionist population can reasonably claim it- or you don't. In that case what are you left with? Tyranny of the majority. Or some foundation-myth aspiration to it ;)

I accept and respect the right of nations and ethno-cultural groups to self-determination, but we both know that NI wasn't founded on the principle of pure self-determination. Half a million unwilling participants were also dragged into the new construction in order to ensure for the new unionist-controlled territory as much economic viability as was possible. Was it fair that the right to self-determination of this newly-resulting nationalist minority was considered secondary to or dependent upon the prior satisfaction of the prioritised economic concerns of uninterested unionists? If pure unionist self-determination wasn't going to be workable, too bad; that's not something that anyone other than the unionist bloc should be forced to be concerned with, never mind be forced to serve. Why make half a million unwilling nationalists suffer the consequences of the impracticality of pure unionist self-determination in order to provide it with a semblance of economic integrity?


Only if you, like AB, choose to use gerrymander as a generalised term of criticism/ abuse, like fascism, say. Gerrymandering as commonly understood means distorting electoral boundaries, quotas etc. So local government in Derry was such; ditto the city ending up on the 'wrong' side of the border; ditto Fianna Fail increasing the number of three-seaters in the South to disadvantage smaller parties. But the actual border per se isn't a gerrymander.

The term does have undeniable negative connotations and, in my opinion, the thinking behind the establishment of a new northern state to serve the interests of a democratically-manufactured unionist majority at the expense of a sizable new nationalist minority is comparable to the thinking of those who later appreciated gerrymandering as a further valid form of power retention and consolidation. Parallels can be drawn between the concept understood as gerrymandering (fixing electoral boundaries for self-gain) and the drawing of a new border to suit the interests of a particular majority group at the expense of an alienated minority group. I don't think that's a contentious thought.

[Gather round]

I accept and respect the right of nations and ethno-cultural groups to self-determination, but we both know that NI wasn't founded on the principle of pure self-determination

Indeed, although I didn't claim that the principle or its practical effect was pure.


Half a million unwilling participants were also dragged into the new construction

Your preferred alternative would have seen about a million unwilling participants dragged into a different new construction. It should be obvious which tends more to a workable compromise.


Was it fair that the right to self-determination of this newly-resulting nationalist minority was considered secondary to or dependent upon the prior satisfaction of the prioritised economic concerns of uninterested unionists? If pure unionist self-determination wasn't going to be workable, too bad; that's not something that anyone other than the unionist bloc should be forced to be conc. erned with, never mind serve. Why make half a million unwilling nationalists suffer the consequences of the impracticality of pure unionist self-determination in order to provide it with a semblance of economic integrity?

No, it was unfair that the border was drawn along the route confirmed in 1925. The number of 'unwilling participants' on both sides could and should have been much reduced. Actually I think you make too much of the economic justifications for that route: what became NI could have managed with an area including Belfast, surrounding suburban towns and a rural/ agricultural hinterland. It didn't need sparsely populated marginal economic areas like South Armagh or the Sperrins. Unionists at the time used the economic argument largely as a fig-leaf for a broader aim, ie to include as many areas as possible with a significant Unionist-minority population, or close to them. Like fellow child of the 1920s Yugoslavia, on a smaller scale.


The term does have undeniable negative connotations and, in my opinion, the thinking behind the establishment of a new northern state to serve the interests of a unionist majority at the expense of a sizable nationalist minority is comparable to the thinking of those who later appreciated gerrymandering as a further feasible form of power retention and consolidation. Parallels can be drawn between the concept understood as gerrymandering (fixing electoral boundaries for self-gain) and the drawing of a new border to suit the interests of a particular majority group at the expense of an alienated minority group. I don't think that's a contentious thought

No, it's a limited parallel. The basic justification for creating NI was simple in principle: the only practical alternatives were retaining the pre-1918 status quo (unacceptable to millions of Nationalists), or a united Ireland independent of Britain (unacceptable to a million Unionists). Wherever the border was drawn would have been contentious. The fairer. utilitarian alternative would have been a route to reduce the disaffected stranded on the wrong side to as small a number as possible. For whatever reason the Free State government was unable to do that in the early 1920s, and as far as I know nobody in the South is suggesting a redraw now. In those circumstances, gurning about now just looks odd.

[DannyInvincible]

Your preferred alternative would have seen about a million unwilling participants dragged into a different new construction. It should be obvious which tends more to a workable compromise.

Perhaps in being confronted with the impracticality of pure self-determination, unionists would eventually have voluntarily opted to join an interested southern state in light of indifference from Britain? Just a speculative thought; who knows?


No, it was unfair that the border was drawn along the route confirmed in 1925. The number of 'unwilling participants' on both sides could and should have been much reduced. Actually I think you make too much of the economic justifications for that route: what became NI could have managed with an area including Belfast, surrounding suburban towns and a rural/ agricultural hinterland. It didn't need sparsely populated marginal economic areas like South Armagh or the Sperrins. Unionists at the time used the economic argument largely as a fig-leaf for a broader aim, ie to include as many areas as possible with a significant Unionist-minority population, or close to them. Like fellow child of the 1920s Yugoslavia, on a smaller scale.

Offering such a fig-leaf arguably made it more deplorable then.

Naturally, it would have demanded a greater degree of co-operation and conferral in practice, but a more intricate border could have been redrawn in theory, even if it might have looked spatially unusual on a map. (The Baarle-Nassau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau) and Baarle-Hertog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Hertog) enclaves/exclaves of the Netherlands and Belgium appear to function OK, for example, despite their unorthodox constructions.)

Anyway, as you've highlighted, there was indeed an opportunity to do that upon the establishment of the Boundary Commission but it wasn't taken and a redrawing never materialised, for which the Free State must also bear some of the responsibility, albeit with it attempting to bargain from an already-compromised position; beggars (whether morally justified or not) can't be choosers and all that...


For whatever reason the Free State government was unable to do that in the early 1920s, and as far as I know nobody in the South is suggesting a redraw now. In those circumstances, gurning about now just looks odd.

Well, things have moved on from then to where we now find ourselves, but our current situation developed directly out of that reality. A redrawing was up for consideration but was never realised so has been since discarded to the dustbin of history. Maybe things could have been different. Rather than positively gurning about it, I suppose I was more engaging in academic speculation, in which there is little harm surely. :)

[ArdeeBhoy]

Either you accept self-determination as the first principle- in which case a large, localised Unionist population can reasonably claim it- or you don't. In that case what are you left with? Tyranny of the majority. Or some foundation-myth aspiration to it
Yes, like with the island of Ireland at that time.

Ditto this.


Gerrymandering as commonly understood means distorting electoral boundaries, quotas etc. But the actual border per se isn't a gerrymander.
The example quoted is rubbish as we're talking about a far bigger area, based on an illegally transplanted population.

Anyway, before someone bleats about tangents, it did however mean the creation of our own, er, 'beloved' FAI.

But yet another example of colonialism having a lot to answer for, dividing up land on false 'majorities' and arbitrary boundaries. Still that worked well, didn't it.

[Gather round]

Perhaps in being confronted with the impracticality of pure self-determination, unionists would eventually have voluntarily opted to join an interested southern state in light of indifference from Britain? Just a speculative thought; who knows?

http://i746.photobucket.com/albums/xx101/torchomatic/WishfulThinking12.jpg


Naturally, it would have demanded a greater degree of co-operation and conferral in practice, but a more intricate border could have been redrawn in theory, even if it might have looked spatially unusual on a map. (The Baarle-Nassau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau) and Baarle-Hertog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Hertog) enclaves/exclaves of the Netherlands and Belgium appear to function OK, for example, despite their unorthodox constructions.)

It wouldn't even have needed to be intricate, would it? For example, you could just have transferred the big Nationalist-majority towns beside the border across it.


the Free State must also bear some of the responsibility, albeit with it attempting to bargain from an already-compromised position; beggars (whether morally justified or not) can't be choosers and all that...

Careful, you don't want to lapse into Mopery there ;) Wouldn't you expect the new Free State to have negotiated with at least some confidence?

But let's not be too hard on Cosgrave senior. His son was in charge 50 years later; neither he nor any other Taoiseach in 88 years has made any effort to address the issue.


Well, things have moved on from then to where we now find ourselves, but our current situation developed directly out of that reality. A redrawing was up for consideration but was never realised so has been since discarded to the dustbin of history. Maybe things could have been different. Rather than positively gurning about it, I suppose I was more engaging in academic speculation, in which there is little harm surely. :)

So, the current situation is that your politicians and wider opinion can't be bothered to argue for smaller changes to the border, yet pretend to be committed in principle to abolishing it entirely. That's a little harmful because it's hypocritical and dishonest, no?

[Gather round]

we're talking about a far bigger area, based on an illegally transplanted population

Was that what you told the immigration control in New York and Sydney?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Pretty much. Not that you'd know.

But they didn't ask.
;)

[ArdeeBhoy]

So, the current situation is that your politicians and wider opinion can't be bothered to argue for smaller changes to the border, yet pretend to be committed in principle to abolishing it entirely. That's a little harmful because it's hypocritical and dishonest, no?
Er, No.

Currently it's all down to the financial implications.

[Eminence Grise]

The fairer. utilitarian alternative would have been a route to reduce the disaffected stranded on the wrong side to as small a number as possible. For whatever reason the Free State government was unable to do that in the early 1920s

Very complicated reasons at the time, to do with the interpretation of whether the border could only be shifted northwards, to benefit the Free State (its view), or whether changes to the border could go in both directions, with the Free State benefitting anyway (the British view). A draft of the Boundary Commission report was leaked to the press showing part of Donegal going to the North; that caused conniptions in Cosgrave's government.

This gives some flavour of the political manoeuvrings behind the scenes.

http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=688

Edit
Re Gerrymandering, Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalists. That's a blatant Gerrymander. But the Unionist government in NI wasn't just opposed to nationalist representation. A look at the Stormont papers shows pretty quickly that it was also anti-Labour - in fact, anti anything that wasn't Tory and propertied.

[Gather round]

Very complicated reasons at the time, to do with the interpretation of whether the border could only be shifted northwards, to benefit the Free State (its view), or whether changes to the border could go in both directions, with the Free State benefitting anyway (the British view). A draft of the Boundary Commission report was leaked to the press showing part of Donegal going to the North; that caused conniptions in Cosgrave's government

Very complicated? Hardly. How difficult is it to draw the right line around Strabane?


Re Gerrymandering, Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalists. That's a blatant Gerrymander

Which examples had you in mind?

[DannyInvincible]

It wouldn't even have needed to be intricate, would it? For example, you could just have transferred the big Nationalist-majority towns beside the border across it.

If greater accommodation had been a runner, accommodating majority-nationalist enclaves, such as west Belfast or areas of Moyle, might have required a higher degree of intricacy.


Wouldn't you expect the new Free State to have negotiated with at least some confidence?

Ultimately, it seems the Free State was unwilling to sacrifice land it perceived to rightfully be its own, or at least was afraid to relinquish certain areas of territory then under its jurisdiction given the threat of potential public outrage after notes of the Boundary Commission's negotiations were leaked to an unimpressed southern public before the Commission agreed on a final settlement.


So, the current situation is that your politicians and wider opinion can't be bothered to argue for smaller changes to the border, yet pretend to be committed in principle to abolishing it entirely. That's a little harmful because it's hypocritical and dishonest, no?

The two aspirations are mutually exclusive, no? Redrawing the border wouldn't equate to abolishing it. In fact, quite the opposite; the political integrity of any new border would surely be bolstered by greater democratic legitimacy. Anyhow, I can't speak for dishonest hypocrites, nor they for I. :o

Or are you accusing me of hypocrisy too?

[ArdeeBhoy]

No, the last line refers to the usual paranoia.

We're much more relaxed;they can have the FAI for all I care. Trouble is their alternative is no better, maybe worse...

[Eminence Grise]

Very complicated? Hardly. How difficult is it to draw the right line around Strabane?

Nearly as hard as following your righteous path here! (And a few others from my side of the border too!)



Which examples had you in mind?

Ah, these should do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00nm4gy and http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/pdfs/csj179.pdf.

Both from the 1960s. Is that alright?

[osarusan]

Ah, these should do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00nm4gy



I'm being pedantic here, but that isn't an example of what you said, which was, "Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalists."

The only constituency, or ward, with a Nationalist majority vote returned more Catholic politicians.

I'd guess that was Gather Round's reason for the question.

[ArdeeBhoy]

No, but the other link is.
:rolleyes:

[Gather round]

If greater accommodation had been a runner, accommodating majority-nationalist enclaves, such as west Belfast or areas of Moyle, might have required a higher degree of intricacy

Yes, I accept that Ballycastle or Ballymurphy would be more difficult than Derry or Newry to include in the Irish Republic. But in the first case, the population is quite small. Tough on the Glens, but them's the breaks.

As for west Belfast, they could have something similar to that motorway corridor that used to link west Berlin? I imagine we could find some US Oirish sponsor for it.


Ultimately, it seems the Free State was unwilling to sacrifice land it perceived to rightfully be its own, or at least was afraid to relinquish certain areas of territory then under its jurisdiction given the threat of potential public outrage after notes of the Boundary Commission's negotiations were leaked to an unimpressed southern public before the Commission agreed on a final settlement

Hang on, weren't you suggesting above that the Free State government agreed the 1925 deal because they felt cowed by the British and Unionists? That's at least pretty different from- potentially the exact opposite of- throwing a strop to placate their own unrealistic public. Although as they'd just fought two wars in four years, I suppose it's understandable that they were willing to kick into the long grass.


The two aspirations are mutually exclusive, no? Redrawing the border wouldn't equate to abolishing it. In fact, quite the opposite; the political integrity of any new border would surely be bolstered by greater democratic legitimacy

No, the two aspirations cover the same principle- that there should be a mutually agreed border between the British and Irish states. The practical argument is whether it should run

a) across Fermanagh and Leitrim farmland, as now

b) somewhere beyond the suburban estates of Ballynahinch, Portadown and Limavady, or

c) offshore from Holyhead, Blackpool and the Mull of Kintyre.

Of the three, some variant of b) would presumably disadvantage the fewest people and thus have the greatest democratic legitimacy?


Anyhow, I can't speak for dishonest hypocrites, nor they for I. Or are you accusing me of hypocrisy too?

Not if you clarify that a border within Ireland is best in principle and that we're merely negotiating the practical details.

[Gather round]

Nearly as hard as following your righteous path here! (And a few others from my side of the border too!)

Harsh that. I've deliberately trodden quite a straightforward path on this one ;)

No dig at Sweet Strabane intended there btw. I was watching a profile of one of its favorite sons, country 'n' showband broadcasting star uncle Hugo Duncan on the TV the other day, Hey Boy.


Ah, these should do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00nm4gy and http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/pdfs/csj179.pdf.

Both from the 1960s. Is that alright?

Yes, they confirm the links I posted above to both gerrymandering on Derry Corporation, and wider discrimination in employment and housing summarised by academic John Whyte.


I'm being pedantic here, but that isn't an example of what you said, which was, "Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalists."

The only constituency, or ward, with a Nationalist majority vote returned more Catholic politicians.

I'd guess that was Gather Round's reason for the question

I assumed that EG meant that the North and South wards in Derry were very different in population despite returning the same number of members to the Corporation.

[Fixer82]

Not if you clarify that a border within Ireland is best in principle and that we're merely negotiating the practical details.

I wouldn't have though most people on here would be in favour of a border on the island.
Of course, feel free to correct me of I'm wrong anybody

[ArdeeBhoy]

Let's vote for c). In a notional Rotund world.
;)

But it's going to be immaterial for the next 30 years.
That said, the Brits would drop it like a stone if they could.

[Gather round]

I wouldn't have though most people on here would be in favour of a border on the island.
Of course, feel free to correct me of I'm wrong anybody

OK Funny Boy, let's try again.

It doesn't matter that Irish nationalists are a majority in Ireland (even if you disagree with me that their claimed support for a united Ireland is largely dishonest, and thus hypocritical).

Alongside that majority, there is a large minority of unionists concentrated in Northern Ireland. If you accept that minority also has a right to self-determination, then logicallya border within the island is rational in principle, the argument in practice is where it should run. Otherwise, you get what I mentioned as tyranny of the majority, with Nationalists claiming that the entire island is the only proper electoral/ political unit, and the minority should just lump it.

NI is divided into 18 constituencies for elections to both Westminster and Stormont. In 2010's general election, 11 of them had non-Nationalist majorities. All of these in a continuous area broadly east of the River Bann. Most of the seven others are either west of the Bann or beside the border, apart from West Belfast which is surrounded by the bigger Unionist-majority area. Now imagine that the border was redrawn to include only the 12 north-eastern counties in a new NI. That area would have a notional 72-28% non-Nationalist majority, with a total poplation larger than various independent European countries, eg Montenegro, Malta and Luxembourg.

Redrawing the border within Ireland is theoretically quite straightforward. Getting the 50-55% Nationalist majority within NI which would be needed to trigger a theoretical united Ireland isn't, given factors not least century-long apathy in the South, complete failure of any attempt to entice Unionists, and economic stagnation which looks likely to last a generation or more.

[Gather round]

We're much more relaxed;they can have the FAI for all I care. Trouble is their alternative is no better, maybe worse...

Your drinking buddy John Delaney won't like that.


That said, the Brits would drop it like a stone if they could

They didn't for 50 years from 1922; they aren't doing so now. The link being a willingness to leave it devolved at arm's length.

Even if you can convince that ideally they'd like to pull the plug, Dublin's unwillingness to step in is a major reason why they wouldn't.

[ArdeeBhoy]

It doesn't matter that Irish nationalists are a majority in Ireland
It should...


Alongside that majority, there is a large minority of unionists concentrated in Northern Ireland. If you accept that minority also has a right to self-determination, then logically a border within the island is rational in principle, the argument in practice is where it should run. Otherwise, you get what I mentioned as tyranny of the majority, with Nationalists claiming that the entire island is the only proper electoral/ political unit, and the minority should just lump it.
Kind of what like happened in the North for 65 years then?

Unlike lots of other nations, the border was entirely notional, hypocritical and entirely gerrymandered for the convenience of a unionist 'state'.


18 constituencies for elections to both Westminster and Stormont. In 2010's general election, 11 of them had non-Nationalist majorities. All of these in a continuous area broadly east of the River Bann. Most of the seven others are either west of the Bann or beside the border, apart from West Belfast which is surrounded by the bigger Unionist-majority area. Now imagine that the border was redrawn to include only the 12 north-eastern counties in a new NI. That area would have a notional 72-28% non-Nationalist majority, with a total poplation larger than various independent European countries, eg Montenegro, Malta and Luxembourg.
Surely 6 is enough?
:eek:
Unsure of the difference, allowing for population flow, of those geographical constituencies and those prior to partition, but doubtless Gerry Mandered put in an appearance in a good few...


Your drinking buddy John Delaney won't like that.

We'd willingly swap.

As for the rest, now it's purely down to finance. If Britain could drop/sell/swap they would.
Lots of Eng.people want to offload Scotland, which at least has something going for it. The North hasn't.

[Gather round]

It should...

It doesn't, and you can't offer a single sensible argument why it should.


Kind of what like happened in the North for 65 years then?

Aye, broadly similar in principle, rather worse in practice because nearly twice as many people would find themselves on the wrong side of the border.


Unlike lots of other nations, the border was entirely notional, hypocritical and entirely gerrymandered for the convenience of a unionist 'state'

All borders are notional, because in the natural course of things you'll always get minority communities of varying size on the other side of the line, even if the actual divide is a river, mountain range or other geographical feature.

You clearly don't understand what gerrymander means, so I'll not labour the point.

Are you suggesting that any border within Ireland was/ is hypocritical, or just the route confirmed in 1925 and applying since?


Surely 6 is enough?

Well spotted. I should of course have said 12 constituencies ;)


Unsure of the difference, allowing for population flow, of those geographical constituencies and those prior to partition, but doubtless Gerry Mandered put in an appearance in a good few...

Not in the way you'd think. Variously,

* most of the NI constituencies are roughly similar in population size

* similarly most of them are comfortably Nationalist or non-Nationalist overall, the notable exceptions being Belfast North and South

* the recent planned review to reduce seats across Britain, and equate their sizes, would have seen the loss of one current Unionist seat in Belfast, and one Nationalist in Tyrone (the review was scuppered by Nick Clegg to annoy Cameron)

* so, with the 28% vote share Nationalists might reasonably expect to win three of the current 12 seats in a smaller NI. They actually have two, including Belfast South where the non-Nationalist vote is split.


As for the rest, now it's purely down to finance. If Britain could drop/sell/swap they would.
Lots of Eng.people want to offload Scotland, which at least has something going for it. The North hasn't.

In reality, Dublin and London's attitudes to the status of NI haven't changed much since 1925, so your reliance of the current recession as an explanation of little movement on partition isn't very convincing.

[Eminence Grise]

Harsh that. I've deliberately trodden quite a straightforward path on this one ;)

No dig at Sweet Strabane intended there btw. I was watching a profile of one of its favorite sons, country 'n' showband broadcasting star uncle Hugo Duncan on the TV the other day, Hey Boy.

Indeed - the path of the righteous, as I said! It's funny how so much of what has been written here echoes so much of what was written 90 years ago. Strip away the rhetoric and pointscoring and what's left are not unreasonable arguments on both sides.

You do know, though, that you're now solely responsible for me having Pretty Little Girl from Omagh buzzing round my head. ;)

[Eminence Grise]

I'm being pedantic here, but that isn't an example of what you said, which was, "Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalists."

Took me a moment to get that; thanks for pointing it out. I meant "Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalist constituencies" - ie that the Unionist wards had more seats per head of population than the Nationalist wards.