General Brexit discussion thread

[cromwell]

I was amused by this. It's quite poignant really.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQm4U-fWoAExgG_?format=jpg&name=large">

Bloody hell did that there global warming accelerate overnight and obliterate us under the waves. ::

[Thomas]

Anyway I don't think there's much more to say on this.  We agree on the premise that it's unfair to cast Sinn Féin as some sort of monster, as they were people reacting to a conflict environment — a conflict which was the product of discrimination and bigotry by a sectarian state, and violence by Loyalist mobs and partisan police.  



Where we differ I guess is that I think the IRA campaign was largely pointless — notwithstanding the fact that it's early days were an inevitable reaction to systemic discrimination and unchecked attacks against Catholic communities — but descending into an offensive campaign in which many died for no reason.

well thats your opinion , so as you say we will have to agree to disagree

[Thomas]

Geeez Thomas - even you should have been able to work that out! Clearly, it presents a view that is totally different from the tripe that you keep posting.

What is?



I have said many a time on the old forum i am against the barnett formula. The snp are against it. The uk government past and present are against it.



The problem isnt getting rid of the barnett formula , and i have already agreed with you in that it was only meant to be short term.



The problems is as i have pointed out to you many a time before what to replace it with , and yet again at the risk of repeating my self , full fiscal autonomy is the easiest solution , but you government past and present dont want that.



So what was the purpose of your previous post  when we largely agree on what you wrote? :-?

Yet another ridiculous comment! You are I are both citizens of the UK - THAT is the international recognised 'STATE', which conducts itself as a single entity...I wonder if that is because it has been a 'UNION' for 3 centuries....so UNTIL YOU BECOME INDEPENDENT, we are both citizens of the UK.

are you arguing with yourself yet again stevlin? Quote me where i am saying different?

You have far more control of your affairs thanks to the pair of Scottish prats that governed a short while ago - including an unnecessary and expensive unwarranted Parliament of your own. The England taxpayer can no longer afford you - so here's wishing you success in your venture - provided you don't continue to get handouts from the remainder of the UK.

I have been waiting for years for you to show me where we get handouts from england , and im still waiting.

Just like the Romans did to England, but at the same time helped to improve it......quite a while back of course.....but civilising India, and Scotland as it was then, ( and still is now in parts),very expensive....and it obviously cost the Romans a bit too.....

Have you been reading significant nicks history books or something? England didnt exist during the time of roman empire so what are you talking about?



Your ancestors were still lving in caves on the far side of the harrtz mountains only just  having discovered fire when britain was part of the roman empire.

 ::

Don't think so from the asinine posts that you continue to publish.

Calling my posts foolish when you think northern ireland isnt part of the uk or england was part of the roman empire to name but a few is a riot.



You are the master debater stevlin at talking utter urine. We had whole threads on the old forum dedicated to hysterically laughing at your insane rambling posts.

Geez Thomas - are you pretending to be so obtuse deliberately??

Where am i being obtuse?



How many time do i need to say i agree barnett should go , and everytime i do , you refuse to accept i am agreeing with you and start ranting and dribbling like a child thats thrown its toy oot the pram.



Stevlin ......barnett is rubbish and it should go.



Thomas reply...... aye i agree stevlin.



Stevlin ......what do you mean you agree , you cant agree , you are being obtuse!!! ::  :roll:

You forgot to preface that piece of crap with the usual 'once upon a time'... Incidentally, if/when Scotland leaves the UK it will still be part of the British isles, and the portion of each constituent country is irrelevant. 6 million or so , largely recalcitrant individuals will have left.....but as your wife has assured you Thomas, 'size doesn't matter'.

 :roll:  Aye just as norway denmark and sweden are part of scandinavia. Denmark isnt pretending to be the whole of scandinavia when it only makes up a small part and demanding everyone allow it a seat on the un security council cause it once had an empire when the pope was an altar boy.

..but as your wife has assured you Thomas, 'size doesn't matter

Your wife has assured me size does matter , which is why they call you small stevlin on the wirral .

Geeez Thomas - fancy you taking the word of a politician, and a Tory to boot.....but he is no longer on the scene is he .....and the UK national debt is the responsibility of ALL constituent countries.

prove it?

I would expect most Scots to be far more honourable than that, and would wish to pay their dues.

Feck off ! Im pissing myself laughing at this latest garbage of yours. If back in 2014 most scots had been told no shared currency equals no shared debt , i would imagine scotland would have had 100% vote in favour of yes.

Can't be bothered to waste any more time on the rest of your claptrap..

off ye trot then hen , i will of course yet again accept your surrender as normal small ste!



https://live.staticflickr.com/123/352840552_7a9a0a6ec7_z.jpg">

[Barry]

I was amused by this. It's quite poignant really.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQm4U-fWoAExgG_?format=jpg&name=large">

[Stevlin]

So what is the purpose of this quote apart from desperation? I have already stated in my previous post that no one wants the barnett formula , its an unfair mechanism on everyone , especially scotland , and that the simplest and fairest solution would be to get rid of it and scotland have full fiscal autonomy and let england stand on its own two feet without scottish subsidy of higher per capita tax intake from the scottishtax payer , not to mention scotland paying a share for the london olympics for example while england didnt pay a penny towards the glasgow commonwealth games?

Geeez Thomas - even you should have been able to work that out! Clearly, it presents a view that is totally different from the tripe that you keep posting.

Obviously as far as your concerned stevlin , anyone who doesnt want to subsidise your country is living in a fantasy world as far as you are concerned.

Yet another ridiculous comment! You are I are both citizens of the UK - THAT is the international recognised 'STATE', which conducts itself as a single entity...I wonder if that is because it has been a 'UNION' for 3 centuries....so UNTIL YOU BECOME INDEPENDENT, we are both citizens of the UK.

I havent read the research by economist utsa patnaik , but i will , and from the excerpts i have seen it sounds all to familiar with what is happening with westminsters creative imperial accounting today on scotland.



[/b]

You have far more control of your affairs thanks to the pair of Scottish prats that governed  a short while ago - including an unnecessary and expensive unwarranted Parliament of your own. The England taxpayer can no longer afford you - so here's wishing you success in your venture - provided you  don't continue to get handouts from the remainder of the UK.

i especially like this bit stevlin telling how the "british scam" draining india of 45 trillion and marking down 180 years of india

n deficits worked , a bit like what you are doing today with us....

Just like the Romans did to England, but at the same time helped to improve it......quite a while back of course.....but civilising India, and Scotland as it was then, ( and still is now in parts),very expensive....and it obviously cost the Romans a bit too.....

I am getting it loud and clear stevlin.

Don't think so from the asinine posts that you continue to publish.

What part of the sentence i agree with you regarding the short term mechanism barnett was supposed to be arent you getting? What part of the sentence do you not comprehend that i agree barnett needs to go are you not getting?

Geez Thomas - are you pretending to be so obtuse deliberately??

Barnett illustrates my point of unfairness to England, which knocks a great hole in that ridiculous argument of yours. [/quote]

[quote

Do i need to dribble in that silly scouse accent of yours before you understand the big words?[/quote]

Not at all Thomas - you just dribble because you cannot help it.

No sh*t sherlock. They dont want the scottish cash cow that subsidises england leaving obviously , nor the fact if we do go , liitle england will only make up 40% of the land of the british isles , and be taken even less serious than they are now. ::

You forgot to preface that piece of crap with the usual 'once upon a time'... Incidentally, if/when Scotland leaves the UK it will still be part of the British isles, and the portion of each constituent country is irrelevant. 6 million or so , largely recalcitrant individuals will have left.....but as your wife has assured you Thomas, 'size doesn't matter'.

Osbourne in case you have forgotten stood on a platform and told the world back in 2014 all uk debt belongs to westminster. What are you gibbering about now?

Geeez Thomas - fancy you taking the word of a politician, and a Tory to boot.....but  he is no longer on the scene is he .....and the UK national debt is the responsibility of ALL constituent countries.

You would have to ask us nicely and beg us to agree to take any when we leave , we are under no obligation to take on your debt as everyone knows

I would expect most Scots to be far more honourable than that, and would wish to pay their dues.







Can't be bothered to waste any more time on the rest of your claptrap....but you can count on my whole hearted support to see you sod off......whether or not you pay your debts. Provided we strengthen our border control, and  return illegal immigrants when discovered, ( like sensible countries), unstead of granting asylum.



Best of luck to you anyway.....I'm certainly supportive of your 'so called Independence, and would be pleased to see the EU taking responsibility for your financial subsidies.

[cromwell]

Anyway I don't think there's much more to say on this.  We agree on the premise that it's unfair to cast Sinn Féin as some sort of monster, as they were people reacting to a conflict environment — a conflict which was the product of discrimination and bigotry by a sectarian state, and violence by Loyalist mobs and partisan police.  



Where we differ I guess is that I think the IRA campaign was largely pointless — notwithstanding the fact that it's early days were an inevitable reaction to systemic discrimination and unchecked attacks against Catholic communities — but descending into an offensive campaign in which many died for no reason.

Well I do find Sinn Fein were monsters along with many loyalist terrorists,I don't think I've mentioned it on here but did on another forum I had/ have family in NI ,Protestants some who were targeted for failing to display a union flag and had their windows put in.



I don't claim to be an expert but IMO the biggest mistake was not imposing direct rule immediately the army was sent in,one family member assured me the B specials knew who were the trouble makers were and would sort it,I didn't think my observation that them knowing troublemakers and a look in the mirror went down that well.



Over half my family are Catholic the other Protestant and very early in life I became the godless creature I am today  



The troubles brought its misery over here I had a good mate who did tours over there  and coming from a council estate remember the funeral of one local lad in the army who was murdered over there.



I don't have much time for politicians even less for religions bent on heir own sense of superiority over others and imposing that by violence with leaders more intent on furthering their own power than doing much of worth.



The reunification is inevitable,always was,that morons clung to events from hundreds of years ago served only to bring untold misery for no good purpose.

[Conchúr]

Anyway I don't think there's much more to say on this.  We agree on the premise that it's unfair to cast Sinn Féin as some sort of monster, as they were people reacting to a conflict environment — a conflict which was the product of discrimination and bigotry by a sectarian state, and violence by Loyalist mobs and partisan police.  



Where we differ I guess is that I think the IRA campaign was largely pointless — notwithstanding the fact that it's early days were an inevitable reaction to systemic discrimination and unchecked attacks against Catholic communities — but descending into an offensive campaign in which many died for no reason.

[Conchúr]

Thats up to you , but i dont think fully you understand what i am saying , that violence played its part hand in hand in every countries evolution , wether you personally find it palatable or not , and the same goes with northern ireland.



The british monarchy are an example of what i am saying , today many revere them , but go back so far in history and their ancestors took control using violence and were seen as the terorists rapists and thieves of the day.



You readily admit fianna fail and fine gael for example started out as groups of men with guns , so im not sure what sinn fein are doing different to anyone else  , they appear to be moving from violence and the political wing of a terrorist group to mainstream politics like the rest.



Without violence , Ireland wouldnt be independent today in my opinion and northern ireland wouldnt be engaged in the peace process. Im merely saying its all part of the wider scheme of things however distastefull you may find it , and to single out sinn fein for doing exactly the same as other albeit at differing points in history to me is a nonsense.



Sometimes conor , to me anyway you seem to hold an extremely naive view of the world and how it works.



You totally underestimated brexit and the english , you appear to be underestimating sinn fein and the drive for a border poll that i said would happen sooner while you said no it must happen later , and again you appear to be underestimating the lengths england will go to over brexit negotiations.



Coming on this forum , and i welcome your posting by the way , and telling the english how they wont achieve anything is simply counter productive to your point of view and stirrin up a hornets nest.

During the Easter 1916 centenary celebrations in Dublin, I ended up driving back to Newry because I couldn't hack the hypocrisy any longer.  I had attended a lecture the night before in the Mansion House entitled "How do we glorify the Rising without glorifying violence?".  I just wanted to stand up and say "well, you can't".  The Rising was an act of supreme violence but was an instrumental step on the road to Irish independence.  The Americans don't ask the same questions about their war of independence, the French don't ask it about their Resistance — and I do not imagine for a second the British would ask it if Germany had managed to invade the UK and a guerilla resistance campaign ensued.  



I don't deny that violence has been a significant feature in Northern Ireland's development — I simply question the extent to which it actually got us anywhere.  I mean, even if we are to say that the peace process was the only way there could ever have been reconciliation — and therefore we have to credit violence with pushing that into existence — then we would also have to give credit to Loyalist and State violence.  The other issue of course is that Ulster has had the distinction in Ireland of having a particularly large and concentrated population of Protestant / Unionist / Loyalist people.  During the War of Independence — the rest of Ireland was thoroughly behind the Republican guerillas, the Sinn Féin party of the underground government, and the notion of ending British rule in Ireland.  The context in Ulster, and certainly Northern Ireland circa 1969, was very different — you had a significant proportion of people who were never going to acquiesce to being part of an Irish Republic, and a British state that was going to prop that up.



Hume and his colleagues were smart enough to recognise this.  They recognised that an armed campaign was futile, and that the only way forward was a power sharing relationship in which co-operation between the communities would take priority over the immediate push for a United Ireland.  They were branded by Sinn Féiners as 'stoops' and bootlickers for this stance.  Yet by the end of the 1980s, Sinn Féin had more or less adopted the exact same position.  All the killing, all the fighting, all the bombing had led to nothing more than militant Republicanism coming to the exact same conclusion that Hume et al had reached long before.  



As you have said — if Loyalists / Unionists had embraced the Civil Rights movement for what it was — a reasonable movement borne out of legitimate grievances — many things would have been different.  But something similar can be said of a Sinn Féin: if they had recognised Hume's philosophy for what it was — a reasonable acceptance of the reality — many things would have been different.

[Thomas]

I don't deny the violent origins of Fíanna Fáil and Fine Gael — I'm just saying that I cannot really identify how the violence of the Provisional IRA actually achieved anything.  

Thats up to you , but i dont think fully you understand what i am saying , that violence played its part hand in hand in every countries evolution , wether you personally find it palatable or not , and the same goes with northern ireland.



The british monarchy are an example of what i am saying , today many revere them , but go back so far in history and their ancestors took control using violence and were seen as the terorists rapists and thieves of the day.



You readily admit fianna fail and fine gael for example started out as groups of men with guns , so im not sure what sinn fein are doing different to anyone else  , they appear to be moving from violence and the political wing of a terrorist group to mainstream politics like the rest.



Without violence , Ireland wouldnt be independent today in my opinion and northern ireland wouldnt be engaged in the peace process. Im merely saying its all part of the wider scheme of things however distastefull you may find it , and to single out sinn fein for doing exactly the same as other albeit at differing points in history to me is a nonsense.



Sometimes conor , to me anyway you seem to hold an extremely naive view of the world and how it works.



You totally underestimated brexit and the english , you appear to be underestimating sinn fein and the drive for a border poll that i said would happen sooner while you said no it must happen later , and again you appear to be underestimating the lengths england will go to over brexit negotiations.



Coming on this forum , and i welcome your posting by the way , and telling the english how they wont achieve anything is simply counter productive to your point of view and stirrin up a hornets nest.

[Thomas]

 With regard to your last comment, as far as I knew, it was only my wife that held that view. ;o)

What that you are an auld wirral sex pest? :: Wouldnt surprise me stevlin.



https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PoisedPlayfulEland.webp">

In The Scotsman in January 2004 Barnett wrote, "It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding."



From the horse's mouth as they say!!

So what is the purpose of this quote apart from desperation? I have already stated in my previous post that no one wants the barnett formula , its an unfair mechanism on everyone , especially scotland , and that the simplest and fairest solution would be to get rid of it and scotland have full fiscal autonomy and let england stand on its own two feet without scottish subsidy of higher per capita tax intake from the scottishtax payer , not to mention scotland paying a share for the london olympics for example while england didnt pay a penny towards the glasgow commonwealth games?

Hardly anything to get upset about - probably because I leave those of your ilk to enjoy living in a fantasy world....

Obviously as far as your concerned stevlin , anyone who doesnt want to subsidise your country is living in a fantasy world as far as you are concerned.



I havent read the research by economist utsa patnaik , but i will , and from the excerpts i have seen it sounds all to familiar with what is happening with westminsters creative imperial accounting today on scotland.

New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik - just published by Columbia University Press - deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.



It's a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.

[/b]



i especially like this bit stevlin telling how the "british scam" draining india of 45 trillion and marking down 180 years of indian deficits worked , a bit like what you are doing today with us....

How did this come about?



It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way - mostly with silver - as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.



Here's how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, "buying" from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.



It was a scam - theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.



Some of the stolen goods were consumed in Britain, and the rest were re-exported elsewhere. The re-export system allowed Britain to finance a flow of imports from Europe, including strategic materials like iron, tar and timber, which were essential to Britain's industrialisation. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution depended in large part on this systematic theft from India.



On top of this, the British were able to sell the stolen goods to other countries for much more than they "bought" them for in the first place, pocketing not only 100 percent of the original value of the goods but also the markup.

[/b]





https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-trillion-india-181206124830851.html">https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini ... 30851.html">https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-trillion-india-181206124830851.html

Yeah - and you still don't get it....albeit, that is your 'norm' wrt 'reality'...Even the devisor of the Barnett formula claimed that it was only a short term mechanism..

I am getting it loud and clear stevlin. What part of the sentence i agree with you regarding the short term mechanism barnett was supposed to be arent you getting? What part of the sentence do you not comprehend that i agree barnett needs to go are you not getting?



Do i need to dribble in that silly scouse accent of yours before you understand the big words?

and that has nothing whatsoever with allowing Scotland to leave.

Who says it is?



What are you slevering about now?

they merely wish to preserve the union

No shit sherlock. They dont want the scottish cash cow that subsidises england leaving obviously , nor the fact if we do go , liitle england will only make up 40% of the land of the british isles , and be taken even less serious than they are now. ::

and relise that Scotland will be unable to pay off their share of the national debt..

Osbourne in case you have forgotten stood on a platform and told the world back in 2014 all uk debt belongs to westminster. What are you gibbering about now?



You would have to ask us nicely and beg us to agree to take any when we leave , we are under no obligation to take on your debt as everyone knows

(Dr Qvortrup suggested back in May last year that an independent Scotland could escape any debt obligations, with the UK government being responsible for everything should it choose to play hardball in negotiations. He was proved exactly correct.)

[/b]



and as for being able to afford to pay a share what are you on about now? We are paying a share here and now . Scotland is paying an 8.9 % share of your countries collosul 1.8 trillion debt .Since 2012 for example , my country , which has practically no borrowing powers under the terms of devolution , has paid a collosul £16.5 billion in your countries debt interest alone.



We cant keep bailing you out all the time , and at some point you have to stop spending other peoples money and stand on your own two feet.

if the Scots wish to leave the Union, then that should now be allowed - so you needn't continue to squawk about that to me.

Im not talking to you about leaving the union stevlin.May i remind you for the millionth time , you wont have any sort of a say on it , you wont have a vote much as it annoys you to the core of your being.



Im merely correcting the pish you spout on a regular basis on my countries financies. When you dont even recognise northern ireland as a constituent part of the uk , i dont have much hope for anything you say on the intricacies of trade , revenue and international finance.

Nonsense - the ridiculous formula is in your favour....another reason for getting shut of it - and that at least would stop in relation to Scotland - 'provided they coughed up their share of the national debt.

The snp have had a long standing policy to get rid of the barnett formula and replace it with full fiscal autonomy , something which sends shivers down your countries spine time and again.



We wont be coughing up on any share of your countries debt. You had your chance in 2014 and blew it , salmond told you time and again , no shared currency , no debt. Osbourne took the gamble and said ok , no shared currency and stood and told the world england owns all the debt to calm the markets.

Absolute garbage - despite your constant squawking, you have never provided any convincing evidence whatsoever - whereas, FULL FACT have!!

Read your goverments very own GERS figures. You do understand what GERS is dont you stevlin? They are the figures your country produces on behalf of scotland to make our finances look bad and stop independence ,and even they show for years scotland has contributed a higher share of taxation than your country , which then justified the higher funding per person as we could afford it , and still most years provide westminster with a small net subsidy from the scottish taxpayer without taking into account a geographical share of mineral wealth.



https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/deloittegers.jpg">



https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ukbynation-768x586.jpg">

Yet more biased so called 'evidence'...try some non-biased sources for a change....

All evidence is biased , including and especially your daily garbage you spout on this forum.Unlike you , i dont present myself to be anything other than totally biased for scottish indy.



Non biased evidence , dont make me laugh more than i normally do at the horseshit you utter stevlin.



 ::

.and you may well realise that 'international recognition of 'Scottish oil/gas' fields appreciate that they are BRITISH.....and will remain so until Scotland leaves the EU.....because the fields are in BRITISH waters.

Who has said otheriwse apart from you stevlin? Quote me where in any of my posts i have said the current uk waters dont belong to the uk?



...but for the hard of understand like you , when scotland goes the current uk ends , and those waters revert back to scottish /english waters.



https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRNNmAA6nLlRBuz6kZFQhzGsmyudybY6d4BMPCfYmo7MYAUbHAn">

[Stevlin]

We have discussed the barnet formula many a time. We discussed on the auld forum over the years how all the parties hate it especially including the snp who want full fiscal autonomy for scotland , yet the westminster parties are afraid to give scotland complete control over running our own affairs , and as i said a million time , you have to ask yourself why that is?

 In The Scotsman in January 2004 Barnett wrote, "It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding."



From the horse's mouth as they say!!

[Stevlin]

How do you know if i have a thin or fat arse , and what are you doing looking at it yan auld wirral sex pest? 8-)  ::

But I thought that is what you were stating when you claimed that you had laughed your 'F' arse off Thomas! With regard to your last comment, as far as I knew, it was only my wife that held that view. ;o)

getting all upset again stev? Few truths hitting home into that fantasy world you inhabit?

Hardly anything to get upset about - probably because I leave those of your ilk to enjoy living in a fantasy world....

We have discussed the barnet formula many a time. We discussed on the auld forum over the years how all the parties hate it especially including the snp who want full fiscal autonomy for scotland , yet the westminster parties are afraid to give scotland complete control over running our own affairs , and as i said a million time , you have to ask yourself why that is?

Yeah - and you still don't get it....albeit, that is your 'norm' wrt 'reality'...Even the devisor of the Barnett formula claimed that it was only a short term  mechanism...and that has nothing whatsoever with allowing Scotland to leave....they merely wish to preserve the union, and relise that Scotland will be unable to pay off their share of the national debt.....even the UK are finding that very difficult, because of the huge debt servicing cost - but as I have told you before - if the Scots wish to leave the Union, then  that should now be allowed  - so you needn't continue to squawk about that to me.

So i havent ignored any barnett formula , as you know fine well. Its a long running discussion between us , and the simple fact is its still in place until the london based parties devise another system to screw scotland over.

Nonsense - the ridiculous formula is in your favour....another reason for getting shut of it - and that at least would stop in relation to Scotland - 'provided they coughed up their share of the national debt.

I have dealt with your idiotic squeals about higher per capita funding many a time over the years as you yet again know fine well.

Absolute garbage - despite your constant squawking, you have never provided any convincing  evidence whatsoever - whereas, FULL FACT  have!!

 I remember posting this auld article from a number of years back , from the business for scotland website which yet again destroyed your incessant bleating....

Yet more biased so called 'evidence'...try some non-biased sources for a change....

like Full Fact......and you may well realise that 'international recognition of 'Scottish oil/gas' fields appreciate that they are BRITISH.....and will remain so until Scotland leaves the EU.....because the fields are in BRITISH waters.

[Conchúr]

I think i already said most of this earlier , when i mentioned the IRA , the heros as "the old IRA " during the war of independence , had by the sixties become figures of ridicule.



I also pointed out the violence by the unionists and the british state predictably caused violent reactions from nationalism.( hence why i said they didnt feed the beast they created it)



I dont agree with you conclusion in the rest of your post at all conor.



While significant nick and many english will froth at the mouth at the thought of the "evil dreaded sinn fein" being anywhere near power on the island of ireland , the simple fact is many of the main political parties in the republic were founded by "men with guns" whom the english called terrorists back in the day. The guns and the violence went hand in hand with the intellectual argument , as you look at it each had their place at the time.



Prominent irish politicians in the thirties as many have said such as cumann na gaedhael politician eoin o duffy , were prepared to force a military coup rather than see  fianna fail take power such was the hatred many felt of fianna fail , today most see them as a normal prominent mainstream irish party.



The idea Ireland gained its independence and northern irish unionists were brought to the peace table by intellectual argument  while ignoring both the good the bad and the ugly of the violence that accompanied it to my mind is nonsense conor.



No one wants or condones violence , but it happens as history shows for a variety of reasons. Its rarely is ever about good v evil , sometimes it s merely about survival.

I don't deny the violent origins of Fíanna Fáil and Fine Gael — I'm just saying that I cannot really identify how the violence of the Provisional IRA actually achieved anything.  Sinn Féin supporters spent years calling us 'Stoops' for voting for the 'Stoop Down Low Party' (SDLP), while Martin McGuinness proclaimed that a United Ireland would be achieved by "cutting edge of the IRA".  But by the late 80s and early 90s, Sinn Féin had begun to acknowledge the futility of the armed campaign and were soon more or less signing off the same hymn sheet that John Hume had written 20 years earlier — the ideas of power sharing and a new relationship between the two northern communities that didn't necessarily mean immediate reunification and 'Brits Out'.  The Hume philosophy was prevalent in Sunningdale, the Anglo Irish Agreement and indeed the Good Friday Agreement — Sinn Féin were relative newcomers to the philosophy but they eventually came round to it.  The very fact that Sinn Féin got fully behind the Good Friday Agreement is the ultimate vindication of the philosophy of Hume and the SDLP — the Stoops were right all along — power sharing and constitutional politics were the key to progress, not violence.  



Indeed the IRA's place in the perception of northern Catholics was made clear in election trends.  All throughout the Troubles, Sinn Féin were the minority Nationalist party and the SDLP commanded the majority of Catholic votes — an indication in itself of how Catholics viewed the SF doctrine of a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other. It was clear that the ordinary people acknowledged that the SDLP had done more for ordinary Catholics than Sinn Féin and the IRA.  



But now that SF have more or less become what the SDLP were decades ago — a nationalist party rejecting violence and promoting the concept of power sharing and consent, we see the emergence of historical revisionism.  Ultimately, it's hard for Sinn Féin — with many of its members down through the years fighting and watching their comrades die — to accept that it was all for nothing. It's hard for Republicans to look at all those faces of young men and women immortalised on mural walls, people held up as heroic freedom fighters and martyrs, and quietly accept that ultimately they did nothing for the Catholic community and fought a war they had zero chance of ever winning.  



The Sinn Féin view of history paints a picture that there was simply no other choice but to take up arms, a view which ultimately plays down the people who won the real victories for the Catholic people — men and women like John Hume and Brid Rodgers. In the context of the late 60s and early 70s, it's hard to pontificate about people taking up arms to defend their communities — but the offensive actions are much more difficult to caveat. What was achieved by bombing the Balmoral Furniture Company in 1971, killing two children? What did Irish Nationalism gain from the indiscriminate bombing of Belfast on Bloody Friday?  All it did was further the division, further the alienation, and make attempts at reconciliation almost impossible.



As the 1970s wore on, and into the 1980s, it became increasingly clear that the Provisional IRA campaign had degraded from the days when Bombay Street was burned to the ground.  It was no longer about defence, it was about a pointless and futile attempt to break the will of Unionism and sap the morale of the British state to remain in Ireland.  It was never going to work — and it didn't.  It achieved nothing, but Sinn Féin and former combatants will never accept that because to do so means accepting that they wasted so much of their lives, and their comrades died in vain.

[Thomas]

Well, in most of the 50 odd years preceding the start of the Troubles, the old IRA had negligible support.  Instead, the trend towards the radicalism of the late 1960s can be more closely identified as having begun with the adoption of the Education Act 1947 which created an environment for more Catholics to educate themselves.  Products of that environment included people like John Hume, Bernadette Devlin and Austin Currie — and many others who would form the backbone of the new activist and upwardly mobile Catholic community.  The growing intellectualisation of the Catholic population produced a generation who looked at the world around them and, not only saw the injustice, but could articulate it and form tough arguments to end it.  This is what drew people onto the streets in the late 60s, this is what radicalised people — not the Official IRA, and not the Provos who were yet to even fully exist.  I mean, my dad was a fairly quiet unassuming man who never got in a pick of bother in his entire life — and then one day he lands home from a Civil Rights march in Newry with blood all over his shirt.  It was the call of the Civil Rights movement that got this simple quiet man out marching — the IRA never did.



Now, while the Civil Rights movement was eventually destroyed by the Unionist reaction to it and of course Bloody Sunday, the seeds of change had already been sown. With young educated Catholics now starting to file into universities, public office, senior private sector positions — as well as the Catholic population growing fast — there was never going to be any going back to the old order.  Sadly of course, Unionists reacted with paranoia and suspicion, and the fierce loyalist opposition to the Civil Rights movement (and of course the behaviour of the police and army) fed into the emergence of a much tougher and much more sophisticated version of the IRA — the Provos.  



Whatever the reasons behind their emergence however, the PIRA campaign achieved mostly nothing for Irish Catholics.  It prolonged the change sown by the Civil Rights movement...because it alienated even moderate people from the need for the radical change, it hardened the resolve of even moderate Unionists against the idea of Irish unity, it alienated northern nationalism from the South and — of course — it descended into little more than a tit for tat campaign against the Loyalists and a largely futile campaign against the British state. Not only that, it made people "war weary" and fed the idea that not even a United Ireland was worth all the senseless violence — people got turned off the idea and just wanted peace.  All through the Troubles, the Catholic people knew that real victory lay in constitutional politics — and they voted SDLP in the main.  It was only after Sinn Féin committed itself to peace did it begin to acquire more widespread support.



We don't have to take on board hardcore Unionists with arguments and reasons.  We can simply keep on board Nationalists, continue to encourage support from those who are more-or-less-Nationalists (i.e. people who want to see unification but might be reluctant to vote for it at the crunch) and — above all — ensure that we have the smart arguments to attract the support of the growing middle ground, who may be open to a United Ireland but want to see the plan and a have a clear idea of the end goal.

I think i already said most of this earlier , when i mentioned the IRA , the heros as "the old IRA " during the war of independence , had by the sixties become figures of ridicule.



I also pointed out the violence by the unionists and the british state predictably caused violent reactions from nationalism.( hence why i said they didnt feed the beast they created it)



I dont agree with you conclusion in the rest of your post at all conor.



While significant nick and many english will froth at the mouth at the thought of the "evil dreaded sinn fein" being anywhere near power on the island of ireland , the simple fact is many of the main political parties in the republic were founded by "men with guns" whom the english called terrorists back in the day. The guns and the violence went hand in hand with the intellectual argument , as you look at it each had their place at the time.



Prominent irish politicians in the thirties as many have said such as cumann na gaedhael politician eoin o duffy , were prepared to force a military coup rather than see  fianna fail take power such was the hatred many felt of fianna fail , today most see them as a normal prominent mainstream irish party.



The idea Ireland gained its independence and northern irish unionists were brought to the peace table by intellectual argument  while ignoring both the good the bad and the ugly of the violence that accompanied it to my mind is nonsense conor.



No one wants or condones violence , but it happens as history shows for a variety of reasons. Its rarely is ever about good v evil , sometimes it s merely about survival.

[Conchúr]

I thought it a strange way to express your view , this the unionists fed the beast . It implies there was a beast already in existence without defining the years of abuse that created that beast in the first place.







This is what im getting at and what wasnt clear in the quote i mentioned. Not to mention the fact i think it totally wasted on nick. :roll:











Im not condoning IRA behaviour. Im saying its not difficult to understand the reasons behind why they came into being , not to mention the fact most english wont have a clue the difference between the old IRA and the provisionals.



I dont have the time to go into it now , but i would love to hear how you think the sectarian statelet was smashed intellectually...?



I would have to disagree with that at face value till i hear your explanation. You will never take on board hardcore unionism with polite argument s and reason. This shows a clear lack of understanding and knowledge.



These people have been brutalised and made savage beyond all normal reason .

Well, in most of the 50 odd years preceding the start of the Troubles, the old IRA had negligible support.  Instead, the trend towards the radicalism of the late 1960s can be more closely identified as having begun with the adoption of the Education Act 1947 which created an environment for more Catholics to educate themselves.  Products of that environment included people like John Hume, Bernadette Devlin and Austin Currie — and many others who would form the backbone of the new activist and upwardly mobile Catholic community.  The growing intellectualisation of the Catholic population produced a generation who looked at the world around them and, not only saw the injustice, but could articulate it and form tough arguments to end it.  This is what drew people onto the streets in the late 60s, this is what radicalised people — not the Official IRA, and not the Provos who were yet to even fully exist.  I mean, my dad was a fairly quiet unassuming man who never got in a pick of bother in his entire life — and then one day he lands home from a Civil Rights march in Newry with blood all over his shirt.  It was the call of the Civil Rights movement that got this simple quiet man out marching — the IRA never did.



Now, while the Civil Rights movement was eventually destroyed by the Unionist reaction to it and of course Bloody Sunday, the seeds of change had already been sown. With young educated Catholics now starting to file into universities, public office, senior private sector positions — as well as the Catholic population growing fast — there was never going to be any going back to the old order.  Sadly of course, Unionists reacted with paranoia and suspicion, and the fierce loyalist opposition to the Civil Rights movement (and of course the behaviour of the police and army) fed into the emergence of a much tougher and much more sophisticated version of the IRA — the Provos.  



Whatever the reasons behind their emergence however, the PIRA campaign achieved mostly nothing for Irish Catholics.  It prolonged the change sown by the Civil Rights movement...because it alienated even moderate people from the need for the radical change, it hardened the resolve of even moderate Unionists against the idea of Irish unity, it alienated northern nationalism from the South and — of course — it descended into little more than a tit for tat campaign against the Loyalists and a largely futile campaign against the British state. Not only that, it made people "war weary" and fed the idea that not even a United Ireland was worth all the senseless violence — people got turned off the idea and just wanted peace.  All through the Troubles, the Catholic people knew that real victory lay in constitutional politics — and they voted SDLP in the main.  It was only after Sinn Féin committed itself to peace did it begin to acquire more widespread support.



We don't have to take on board hardcore Unionists with arguments and reasons.  We can simply keep on board Nationalists, continue to encourage support from those who are more-or-less-Nationalists (i.e. people who want to see unification but might be reluctant to vote for it at the crunch) and — above all — ensure that we have the smart arguments to attract the support of the growing middle ground, who may be open to a United Ireland but want to see the plan and a have a clear idea of the end goal.