Norn Iron rubbish part 23452346526

[gspain]

By the sounds of it, Sir Henry the FAI president was a Unionist.
Interesting story around the split. One or probably both parties were not with serious intent on maintaining football unity except under their umbrella.
I wonder how the other main sports like rugby didn't suffer the same (mis)fortune.

No idea of Sir Henry's politics but probably a fair assumption.

I think one of the important things to bear in mind that the split was very much club driven and club focussed and was because the southern clubs felt they were getting a raw deal. It was Shels being forced to go back to Belfast for a cup replay that was considered to be the straw that broke the camel's back. The IFA's argument was that Dublin was unsafe due to the War of Independence.

The IFA probably saw the FAI as upstarts who would come crawling back with their tail between their legs in a few years.

I think it is also fair to say that the FAI document referenced by Brodie & Byrne (even allowing for slight differences) was hardly one of reconciliation.
However given virtually nothing else seems to be known about the meetings it is hard to tell. Given the IFA came to Dublin for the last one would indicate that they at least were being serious albeit presumably on their terms.

The French and subsequent FIFA recognition in 1923 appears to have been key to the survival and future of the FAI.

[ArdeeBhoy]

The French and subsequent FIFA recognition in 1923 appears to have been key to the survival and future of the FAI.

Now there's irony.

[kingdomkerry]

Rather than base my analysis/hopes about "the big one" on crude sectarian headcounts, I would be more minded to study what peoples attitudes are.

eg,

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Polit.../NIRELND2.html

Furthermore, with the Celtic Tiger falling apart, I don't think a lot of the 66% of those favouring the Union, will be changing their mind any time soon.

By the way, if I can be convinced that me and my family would be better off in a "United" Ireland than by remaining part of the UK, i'll vote for it.

Similarly, if anyone can convince me why it would be a good idea that the International football team I support disappears, I'll buy the ticket.

Unfortunately, people demonising/vilifying/labelling me for making considered, grown up, decisions on such issues won't be going anyway towards convincing me that those people are right.

That NILT survey is rubbish. It also states that the percentage of people who would vote for SF in the north is 12-14% when it is in fact 26%.

Republicans/nationalists if asked by any stranger they did not know were asked if they were a Republican they would either not respond or lie.

A lot of Republicans keep their beliefs to themselves as they are anti-establishment and anti-status quo.

If you want proof of this just look at past surveys that polled large amounts of people during elections, the polls would state that SF were a small party yet when it came to voting in the privacy of the booth, people made SF the second largest party in the north.

[jinxy lilywhite]

With all due respect Kingdom Kerrry I do not believe the majority of folks in the north whether they be Catholic/Protestant, Loyalist/Republican, Nationalist/Unionist would vote to join the south. The border is there and alot of people are making alot of money out of the border whether it be legal or illegal. In this day and age money talks and i believe the average northerner would not see an advantage to joining the south because of the extra euros flooding in up there. on the flipside if and when the sterling strengthens again the reverse may happen.
as long as there is profit to be made out of the border then it will be there

[micls]

With all due respect Kingdom Kerrry I do not believe the majority of folks in the north whether they be Catholic/Protestant, Loyalist/Republican, Nationalist/Unionist would vote to join the south. The border is there and alot of people are making alot of money out of the border whether it be legal or illegal. In this day and age money talks and i believe the average northerner would not see an advantage to joining the south because of the extra euros flooding in up there. on the flipside if and when the sterling strengthens again the reverse may happen.
as long as there is profit to be made out of the border then it will be there

Not only that but its certainly not guaranteed that people down here will vote to take the North on either.

We cant afford ourselves, and NI is a huge drain on the British economy, imagine what it'd do to ours.

[kingdomkerry]

With all due respect Kingdom Kerrry I do not believe the majority of folks in the north whether they be Catholic/Protestant, Loyalist/Republican, Nationalist/Unionist would vote to join the south. The border is there and alot of people are making alot of money out of the border whether it be legal or illegal. In this day and age money talks and i believe the average northerner would not see an advantage to joining the south because of the extra euros flooding in up there. on the flipside if and when the sterling strengthens again the reverse may happen.
as long as there is profit to be made out of the border then it will be there

I agree a majority would not vote for unification in the present. It cant be ruled out in the future is all im saying considering the changing demographics.

Im only trying to argue this because I think it is relevant to the thread (merging IFA and FAI)

[geysir]

However, the IFA delegation was described by Brodie as being "baffled" that immediately after the Meeting, the FAI delegation was able to produce a typed Statement, which outlined their conclusions (i.e. the clear implication being that this must have been prepared before they even met the IFA).

.......................

It is no wonder that Capt. Wilton, the leader of the IFA delegation, was to describe this Statement (I'm tempted to call it "Easter Proclamation II" ) as "Impossible" and "out of the question", causing them to leave the Conference.

Sounds like Wilton was grandstanding.
I don't see the evidence pointing beyond the face value, the FAI prepared their points, typed them out before the meeting and presented the same points afterwards to any press. I see any special significance attached to that.

The bone of contention was what was contained in the 8 points and the lack of any compromise or resolutions.

[as_i_say]

Northern Ireland are crap.

[Straightstory]

[QUOTE=kingdomkerry;1294531
Republicans/nationalists if asked by any stranger they did not know were asked if they were a Republican they would either not respond or lie.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting mindset.

[Not Brazil]

That NILT survey is rubbish.

It's easy, and convenient, for you to dismiss it as "rubbish", as it blows apart some of your earlier assertions.

You'll find lots more detailed surveys conducted by NILT which may leave you scratching your head, and re-thinking your assertions.

[Gather round]

Interesting posts about the early football history from Messrs GSpain, Ealing and Co. Down.

That NILT survey is rubbish. It also states that the percentage of people who would vote for SF in the north is 12-14% when it is in fact 26%

We already know how many vote Sinn Fein. That's the best guide to how many will vote for them in the near future.

A lot of Republicans keep their beliefs to themselves as they are anti-establishment and anti-status quo

Why, are they ashamed of being republicans?

This is common enough. Many DUP voters have long claimed to vote for other parties, ditto Conservative voters in England during Thatcherism, and I daresay much of Fianna Fail's support in the Republic.

I agree a majority would not vote for unification in the present. It cant be ruled out in the future is all im saying considering the changing demographics

Not ruling it out is rather less than your claim earlier- you seemed to think then that it was inevitable and anyone challenging this was in denial...

i believe the average northerner would not see an advantage to joining the south because of the extra euros flooding in up there. on the flipside if and when the sterling strengthens again the reverse may happen...as long as there is profit to be made out of the border then it will be there

That suggests support for a border (ie, unionism) should fluctuate sharply with currency exchange rates. In practice this is a minor factor compared to national identity.

We cant afford ourselves, and NI is a huge drain on the British economy, imagine what it'd do to ours

NI is rather less of a drain than during 30 years of political violence. And to stress, it's only 3% of the population of Britain (as opposed to 30% of Ireland). It's little more of a drain on the British economy than Tyneside or the Black Country (similarly sized areas with low income per head and high unemployment).

[Not Brazil]

I agree a majority would not vote for unification in the present. It cant be ruled out in the future is all im saying considering the changing demographics.

1998

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/1998/Polit.../NIRELAND.html

2008

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2008/Polit.../NIRELND2.html

Not too much "change in demographics" there then.

Keep the dream alive - even when the evidence doesn't stack up.

[EalingGreen]

Wilton's son Claude, was a prominemt member of the civil rights movement in Derry in 1968, and in later years became a member of ther SDLP.

Ivan Cooper, who was a close friend of Claude's, said: "He was one of the legends of this city. He did not choose the path of his family. His father was a Unionist Mayor of Derry but Claude chose a different path, the path of civil rights. Instead of playing rugby he played football with the common five eights of this city. He was there on October 5, 1968 and was prominent in every facet of working-class life in this city."

Interesting observation, CDG. It gave me cause to root around a wee bit more for info on Claude, including finding the last part of that tribute by Cooper - i.e. his (Wilton's) campaigning slogan was "Vote for Claude, the Catholic Prod!"

Anyhow, I feel that Cooper is incorrect when he implies that Claude's choice of football was a sign of his solidarity etc with the ordinary people of Derry.

For if you look at his background, he had a dual* sporting heritage. As a (middle-class) pupil at Foyle & Londonderry college, then a student at TCD, he was immersed in rugby.

But his father was a former NI international footballer, whose career in football administration later saw him become President of the IFA. Moreoever, his uncle Robert (James' brother) was also a noted footballing figure, including with Limavady United and the North West FA etc.

Anyhow, it would appear from the "Football" section of this Radio Foyle interview with Claude that he simply preferred football (or "sawkker" as he called it) to rugby, but not so much that it prevented him for playing the latter for City of Derry RFC for a while:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland...e_wilton.shtml

Fascinating character all round.




* - Triple, actually, if you add Cricket

[kingdomkerry]

1998

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/1998/Polit.../NIRELAND.html

2008

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2008/Polit.../NIRELND2.html

Not too much "change in demographics" there then.

Keep the dream alive - even when the evidence doesn't stack up.

Evidence does'nt stack up eh

I stated that demographic change is occuring in favour of nationalism. I provided evidence for this. http://ulstersdoomed.blogspot.com/se...bel/Demography

Heres some more http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/religion.htm#ni-rel-02 Note the catholic/nationalist population has gone up from approx 33% in 1921 to approx 43% at present.

You will find more here http://www.nisra.gov.uk/

I then got the repartition arguement. Im not even going to argue against this because in order for this to happen it would involve nationalist ireland and the irish gov to agree. Will never happen.

Your last throw of the dice was the NILT "opinion polls"
Im discrediting these polls not because "its easy and convenient" but

1.People lie in NI opinion polls.
The same poll showed 12-14% of the NI electorate vote for SF. In the election they got over 26%. This shows the poll is not accurate.

2.People do not know what they are voting for.
Even if these polls were accurate I would not be worried. To quote a poster on a different forum

Until such time as we receive a Unity paper, there is absolutely no point in asking anyone what they support.

Its true that historically a percentage of Catholics favoured the status quo , but this was always in absence of a detailed proposal of change.

Those who do not support unity now are not necessarily Unionists, they are people without a choice.
The only thing they know is the status quo.
Until you hand them an alternative with facts there is no point in polling them.

Would people have voted for the Lisbon treaty before they heard any details about it?
Why do people expect a biast poll to give an accurate result?
Its not a poll on the United Kingdom verses complete Independence of Ireland.
Its a poll on wether people want something they know, or something they know nothing about.
I'm surprised the polls get the results they do, its very encouraging for Republicanism.
We only need to convince about an extra 20% of the norths electorate with a unity paper.
Get the north and souths governments together and create a Unity paper.
Tell me what's in it and then you can ask me If I will vote for it.

Until such a time you are merely polling people on whether they want things to remain as they are, or to change into something they have zero information about.
A poll is void if it is devoid of detail of facts.

The only polls which will matter will be the polls that are asking the voters near a referendum, when they have facts and details.
We haven't reached that point so its all pointless, and pointless arguing about it.


As they say statistics dont lie but liars can use statistics

[co. down green]

That NILT survey is rubbish. It also states that the percentage of people who would vote for SF in the north is 12-14% when it is in fact 26%.

The survey linked by NB was basically rubbished my most commentators the week it was released in June 2009. I’m not sure why anyone would give a survey of 1000 odd people that much time anyway, especially when it consistently gets it so wrong.

The European election results the week after this survey was released ensured that it was seen as pointless and of little real benefit or use as an indicator of real trends or thoughts. The fact that it was so innacurate in gauging party support was probably the reason that its findings have been given so little coverage in the press or media.

Democratic elections are a much clearer indication of people’s beliefs and aspirations & the 42.5% turnout for Nationalism in ther last Euro elections is a real indication of where people stand on the National question.

The creation of a united Ireland football team is the declared policy of both the SDLP and Sinn Féin, as stated in their manifestos, and both parties have openly called for the creation a single team on the island. The SDLP especially, have been strong advocates of the creation of an all Ireland team.

[EalingGreen]

I think one of the important things to bear in mind that the split was very much club driven and club focussed and was because the southern clubs felt they were getting a raw deal. It was Shels being forced to go back to Belfast for a cup replay that was considered to be the straw that broke the camel's back. The IFA's argument was that Dublin was unsafe due to the War of Independence.

Dublin clubs being unhappy with their Association is hardly unheard of, is it?
Anyhow, for various reasons, it seems there were all sorts of disagreements in the administration of the game during this period, as football experienced "growing pains".
Belfast clubs such as Linfield, Glentoran and Belfast Celtic also had grievances from time to time - see the row over the breakaway/alternative Gold Cup etc from a decade earlier, for instance.
Plus there were numerous "range wars" between the IFA and Irish League.
The struggle to cope with Professionalism also became more prominent around this period, along with the push to expand the game from its urban strongholds (Belfast, Dublin), especially in the face of competition from GAA and Rugby etc.
Therefore this was always going to be an unsettled period in Irish football; add the thorny issue of Politics/Civil War etc, then imo it was almost inevitably going to combust. (About which more, below)

The IFA probably saw the FAI as upstarts who would come crawling back with their tail between their legs in a few years.

I imagine that was one attitude - maybe even the concensus? - within the IFA. That said, they will likely have been at least partly influenced by the context in which these events took place.
From what I can gather, other than in Dublin and a few garrison towns, football had very little presence in the 26 counties - at least compared with in NE Ulster. In fact, whole swathes of Munster and Connaught had hardly a football team to their name.
To make a modern analogy, could you imagine Ulster Rugby falling out with the IRFU and making a breakaway to create a new NIRFU? Yet Rugby is considerably more established in NI in 2009 than football was throughout the Free State in 1921.

I think it is also fair to say that the FAI document referenced by Brodie & Byrne (even allowing for slight differences) was hardly one of reconciliation.
However given virtually nothing else seems to be known about the meetings it is hard to tell. Given the IFA came to Dublin for the last one would indicate that they at least were being serious albeit presumably on their terms.

Tbh, on re-reading Brodie, he indicates that whilst the Dublin clubs might have been the vehicle which carried the FAI towards breakaway, the engine which drove them was politics.

In his Chapter on the subject, he writes:

"What caused the split? Was it the dispute over Shelbourne? That no doubt was a contributory factor but the prime reason appeared to be the formation of the Irish Free State and the desire of the Leinster FA to break away from the parent body"

And to be fair, if a reluctance to see a halving of the number of "blazers" is sometimes cited as a reason why the two Associations do not want to unite today, might not the opportunity to double the number by exploiting political differences to create a new body, have tempted some Dublin-based individuals as well?

As for the FAI document, the implication by Brodie is that the IFA came down to Dublin to negotiate a resolution in good faith, but were dismayed when it appeared that this was never actually reciprocated by the FAI, since the latter had already determined to breakaway regardless. Therefore when the FAI presented a list of demands which would effectively mean that the IFA must take a subsidiary, rather than equal, position in any new body, they (FAI) must have known that this could/would not be acceptable to the IFA.

Of course, the IFA will doubtless have had its share of "dinosaurs", but from what little I can glean about Captain Wilton, he was a liberal, conciliatory type - at least by the standards of the day.

[Gather round]

I then got the repartition arguement. Im not even going to argue against this because in order for this to happen it would involve nationalist ireland and the irish gov to agree. Will never happen

Translation: 'it doesn't fit my fixed idea of what will happen in future, so I'll ignore it'. Be honest, you don't know what future politicians will do. It's a possibility.

Until such time as we receive a Unity paper, there is absolutely no point in asking anyone what they support

You don't think (possibly loaded) opinion polls are of any value? Fine, others disagree- they wouldn't take place otherwise. Incidentally, if any future NI election voted 51% to reunify, would you ignore because it wasn't specifically a 'unity paper'?

Those who do not support unity now are not necessarily Unionists, they are people without a choice

This is daft. Voters in Northern Ireland can choose between a variety of nationalist and unionist parties, plus Alliance, UK parties like Green, UKIP and soon Conservative, with Fianna Fail set to join in. Choice isn't unlimited, but hardly non-existent.

We only need to convince about an extra 20% of the norths electorate with a unity paper

Aye, like you just need to convince 20% of the Brit electorate to have permanent Lib Dem government. It's not quite as easy as you suggest...

As they say statistics dont lie but liars can use statistics

Statistics often self-contradict, which may amount to the same thing. If, say, 42% vote for abolish the border parties in an election then only 18% want to abolish it in a separate survey.

]I’m not sure why anyone would give a survey of 1000 odd people that much time anyway, especially when it consistently gets it so wrong

Generally, 1,000 is a standard sample size for opinion polling. MORI, Gallup etc. use it in Britain to reflect a population of 60 million.

The creation of a united Ireland football team is the declared policy of both the SDLP and Sinn Féin, as stated in their manifestos, and both parties have openly called for the creation a single team on the island. The SDLP especially, have been strong advocates of the creation of an all Ireland team

As you'd expect, they're single issue parties to abolish the border.

[gspain]

Tbh, on re-reading Brodie, he indicates that whilst the Dublin clubs might have been the vehicle which carried the FAI towards breakaway, the engine which drove them was politics.

In his Chapter on the subject, he writes:

"What caused the split? Was it the dispute over Shelbourne? That no doubt was a contributory factor but the prime reason appeared to be the formation of the Irish Free State and the desire of the Leinster FA to break away from the parent body"

There wasn't any Free State in June 1921. Michael Collins didn't go to London to negotiate the treaty until October.

[jinxy lilywhite]

With all due respect Kingdom Kerrry I do not believe the majority of folks in the north whether they be Catholic/Protestant, Loyalist/Republican, Nationalist/Unionist would vote to join the south. The border is there and alot of people are making alot of money out of the border whether it be legal or illegal. In this day and age money talks and i believe the average northerner would not see an advantage to joining the south because of the extra euros flooding in up there. on the flipside if and when the sterling strengthens again the reverse may happen.
as long as there is profit to be made out of the border then it will be there

That suggests support for a border (ie, unionism) should fluctuate sharply with currency exchange rates. In practice this is a minor factor compared to national identity.

Don't get me wrong I would love nothing more than Ireland to be one nation in one island but in truth when it does happen all i can see is, all hell beaking lose and unfortuneately I can never see that day nor would I ever then as a result would I want that day to happen. So I suppose maybe in a perverse way I'd be unionist, though I wouldn't have time for unionism per se
As a part of my bringing up I was never taught to believe in national identities or that I was different to anybody else because of my nationality or my religion (though i am not very religious).
Personally I would be off the belief that I would and could live anywhere under any flag as long as I had my basic human rights i.e the right to work, provide for my family and the right to vote in free and fair elections.
I do have to laugh at some folk though thinking that NI one will be looking to join the south. I think one day maybe the south may look to go back

[EalingGreen]

The survey linked by NB was basically rubbished my most commentators the week it was released in June 2009. I’m not sure why anyone would give a survey of 1000 odd people that much time anyway, especially when it consistently gets it so wrong.

The European election results the week after this survey was released ensured that it was seen as pointless and of little real benefit or use as an indicator of real trends or thoughts. The fact that it was so innacurate in gauging party support was probably the reason that its findings have been given so little coverage in the press or media.

Democratic elections are a much clearer indication of people’s beliefs and aspirations & the 42.5% turnout for Nationalism in ther last Euro elections is a real indication of where people stand on the National question.

The creation of a united Ireland football team is the declared policy of both the SDLP and Sinn Féin, as stated in their manifestos, and both parties have openly called for the creation a single team on the island. The SDLP especially, have been strong advocates of the creation of an all Ireland team.

I haven't had the time or inclination even to read the NILT survey to which NB referred, plus I am very loathe to enter into the political (i.e. non-footballing) side of this thread.

But for all that the Nationalist Parties are "strong advocates" of a single Irish team etc, they would appear to have rather more important matters to address.

For soon after the European elections to which you refer, SF held a series of roadshows in the USA, to appeal to Irish America for dollars, sorry, one last push towards a UI etc

Anyhow, one of their Platform Speakers was (Corkman) Professor Brendan O'Leary. If you Google him, you will see that O'Leary is a leading political psephologist/demographer, not just in the Irish context, but internationally. For example, he was New Labour's chief guru in GB during Tony Blair's electoral successes of the 1990's etc. And I think it fair to say he is no friend of Ulster Unionism!

Yet the Irish Times reported that O'Leary had disclosed at SF's San Francisco (or LA?) Conference that he felt that the European Election results indicated to him that electoral support for a UI in NI had now plateaued. Consequently, he did not foresee a 50%+1 majority for unification arising "in the foreseeable future" - a clear u-turn from his previous forecasts.

Strangely enough, when I looked for confirmation of this on SF's website, Press Releases etc soon after, this particular contribution by O'Leary was nowhere to be seen...

Anyhow, I am always rather sceptical about attempts to predict such matters over the long-term, but if the likes of O'Leary is now admitting it, it can hardly be bad news for those who advocate retaining the Union!

And if the Union is secure, then more importantly, so must be the NI team!