British is Now a Racist Term

[Loyalist]

The word ‘British’ can be as offensive as ‘negro’ and ‘half-caste’, according to a race relations body.

The publicly-funded organisation’s views have been adopted by Caerphilly council in South Wales for a leaflet advising staff on how to deal with the public.

In a section on what words or phrases not to use to avoid causing offence, the leaflet solemnly informs the council’s 9,000 workers: ‘The idea of “British” implies a false sense of unity – many Scots, Welsh and Irish resist being called British and the land denoted by the term contains a wide variety of cultures, languages and religions.’

The suggestion the word ‘British’ should be avoided appears alongside similar sections which warn that ‘half-caste’ implies ‘a person is not whole and so should be avoided’ and that ‘negro’ has ‘racist overtones and is linked with the slave trade’.

The man behind the advice is former Labour minister Ron Davies – who lost his Cabinet job in 1998 after what he described as a ‘moment of madness’, when he was robbed after meeting a man on Clapham Common, a well-known gay haunt.

He has been the head of Valleys Race Equality Council (Valrec) for five years. Valrec is funded by councils and the Commission for Racial Equality and it pays Mr Davies £27,000 a year.

He said: ‘It’s just for information, there’s no advice or instruction. Of this council’s employees, 3,900 describe themselves as white British, whereas 5,400 describe themselves as white Welsh.

‘So this information is very much in accordance with the way that people in Caerphilly identify themselves.’

But Tory MP David Davies, MP for Monmouth said: ‘There’s absolutely nothing offensive about describing people as British.

‘This is political correctness gone mad. Organisations like this are using public money to propagate their own narrow nationalistic ideas.

'Perhaps they should be replaced by a single body that promotes Britishness and encourages everyone in this country, whether black, Asian or white to unite and stand together under the British flag.

Rugby legend Gareth Edwards, who won 53 caps for Wales and ten for the British Lions, said last night: ‘I’m very proud to be Welsh and if anybody asks me where I’m from, I’ll say Wales. But I’m also British – I’ve played for the British Lions and I’m very proud of that too.’

Less than one per cent of Caerphilly’s 170,000 residents are from ethnic minorities – and figures from the last census suggest only 15 per cent of the total identify themselves as Welsh.

SOURCE (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084738/Council-ranks-term-British-negroes-bans-case-upsets-Scots-Welsh-minorities.html)

[Æmeric]

‘The idea of “British” implies a false sense of unity – many Scots, Welsh and Irish resist being called British and the land denoted by the term contains a wide variety of cultures, languages and religions.’


It's considered racist because members of the Britian's indigenous minority groups consider it racist! Because they are lumped in with the English? Sounds like it has more to do with pandering to some fringe Celtic-Nationalist elements on the left of the leftist Labour Party. It sounds weird because British is an inclusive term & inclusive is not suppose to = racist.

[Oisín]

It sounds weird because British is an inclusive term & inclusive is not suppose to = racist.
It's an inclusive term if you're a Unionist, but to genuine Nationalists from Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales it's meaningless. The UK only came into being in 1801, there are 4 real nations that make up the British Isles and 4 distinctive peoples with their own history, culture and languages, trying to lump us all into the same category and shoehorn us into a false but 'inclusive' identity is probably the first example of a tyrannical government forcing multiculturalism onto the people it rules over, I thought we were meant to be against that.

[Loyalist]

It's an inclusive term if you're a Unionist, but to genuine Nationalists from Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales it's meaningless. The UK only came into being in 1801, there are 4 real nations that make up the British Isles and 4 distinctive peoples with their own history, culture and languages, trying to lump us all into the same category and shoehorn us into a false but 'inclusive' identity is probably the first example of a tyrannical government forcing multiculturalism onto the people it rules over, I thought we were meant to be against that.

"Genuine nationalists" according to your interpretation. The regional nationalism I see in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales seems to only manifest itself through socialist, pro-immigration parties like Sinn Fein, the SNP, and Plaid Cymru respectively. While those ideals of independence for the British Isles nations are understandable, the time when that was in any way realistic has long since passed. Particularly in the case of Scotland and Wales, the countries in question would have no influence on a global scale whatsoever, and a population, inadaquate for a sustainable workforce, which could only exist in a leftist welfare system. Ireland isn't much better, considering the labour sector is propped up by Slavic migrants. The only nationalist parties in the region that are working for both race and nation are the British National Party and the National Front. Both recognize the collective strength of all groups united in one nation. Furthermore, the English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh are an amalgamation of Celts and Germanics, who have co-existed and inter-bred, both on the Isles and the continent, for centuries. There is no comparison between them inhabiting a common state against the same with Negroes or Arabs.

[Vulpix]

Until one or two days ago the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html)'s homepage had a simple poll asking whether "British" is "an offensive term". Y/N. When I first saw it I had to wonder what that was all about :eek:....

[Æmeric]

The term "British" predates the multicutural movement. It's a useful term for the inhabitants of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Obviously no one uses it anymore for the natives of the Republic of Ireland. It is also useful if your ancestry includes more then one group from the British Isles, say for example like myself, a well blended descendant of mostly English but with significant Scots & minor Welsh ancestry. And it's not as though a person can't be both Scottish & British. Just like someone can be English, British & European. Btw, are Tony Blair & Gordon Brown Scottish or British?;) Whatabout other pan-national terms like "Scandinavian"? Should Swedes get upset about being lumped together with Danes?

But as I said, It sounds weird for a leftwinged race relations organization to describe "British" as a racist term on the same level as negro. I think it is more of an attack on Britain's, & in particular England's, heritage. If British is racist then how about "Britain" from which British is derived? Will the term "European" become racist because it offends Turks, Arabs & Africans living in Europe?

Another thing about these lefties who champion Celtic Nationalism: They only do it because it is a way of being anti-English. They do not care about the Irish or Scots. If they did they would take action against all of the immigrants, especially the non-Europid immigrants, currently swamping Ireland instead of celebrating those special milestones such as the first Negro mayor in Ireland etc... What is the point of driving the British out of Ireland if they are replaced by Nigerians?

[Oisín]

"Genuine nationalists" according to your interpretation.
No according to any sane interpretation of the word Nationalist. You cannot be a Nationalist if you would see your own Nation's sovereignty undermined by placing it in a Union that would put a foreign monarch and a foreign parliament in charge of it. I oppose the Union with England for the same reason I oppose the European Union. Every inch of the Irish nation belongs to the Irish people and it is up to us make our own laws and decide our own destiny free from all alien interference whether they're corrupt self-serving Englishmen or their counterparts in Brussels.

The regional nationalism I see in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales seems to only manifest itself through socialist, pro-immigration parties like Sinn Fein, the SNP, and Plaid Cymru respectively.
Only very recently. Irish nationalism is traditionally based on blood and soil nationalism and the idea of the blood sacrifice, which is why every generation of Irishmen has produced martyrs willing to die for our country's freedom. Read some of the writings of Padraig Pearse (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=333) to get an idea of proper Irish nationalism instead of always obsessing about Gerry Adams.
Also economically I would describe myself as something of a socialist anyway, the good of the nation ahead of the private greed that Capitalism creates.

While those ideals of independence for the British Isles nations are understandable, the time when that was in any way realistic has long since passed.
In your opinion.

Particularly in the case of Scotland and Wales, the countries in question would have no influence on a global scale whatsoever, and a population, inadaquate for a sustainable workforce, which could only exist in a leftist welfare system.
You're entitled to your opinion but shouldn't it be up to people who are actually Scottish/Welsh to decide for themselves? And what's this about having no influence on a global scale? That's not the be all and end all you know. Not everyone has imperialistic Team America ideals.

Ireland isn't much better, considering the labour sector is propped up by Slavic migrants.
Propped up, lol. They were allowed to come here en masse so they could flood the labour market and drive wages down and they done just that. We don't need them for anything, there are currently 260,000 people unemployed in Ireland, we don't need any immigrants thank you very much.

The only nationalist parties in the region that are working for both race and nation are the British National Party and the National Front.
They're Unionist parties not nationalist parties.

Both recognize the collective strength of all groups united in one nation. Furthermore, the English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh are an amalgamation of Celts and Germanics, who have co-existed and inter-bred, both on the Isles and the continent, for centuries. There is no comparison between them inhabiting a common state against the same with Negroes or Arabs.
Well the BNP and the NF are entitled to their opinion but if they ever get into power and start having desires on the Irish nation they'll get the exact same reaction as every other imperialistic British government got over the years. The Irish people are a separate distinct people, we don't want British rule, we don't want to be a part of any Union with you, get over it.

[Oisín]

The term "British" predates the multicutural movement.
The term British/Briton originally refers to the native inhabitants of Britain ie. the Welsh. It should either be used correctly or not at all.
The United Kingdom was the original multicultural experiment, taking four separate and distinct peoples and forcing them into a Union, trying to substitute the very real Irish, Scottish, English and Welsh identities for a completely fabricated 'British' one.

It's a useful term for the inhabitants of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
It might be useful but it's not correct.

Obviously no one uses it anymore for the natives of the Republic of Ireland.
Which says alot, it's a political term and nothing more. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. Ethnicities don't just change to include entirely different populations.

It is also useful if your ancestry includes more then one group from the British Isles, say for example like myself, a well blended descendant of mostly English but with significant Scots & minor Welsh ancestry. And it's not as though a person can't be both Scottish & British. Just like someone can be English, British & European.
Like I said useful but not in anyway correct for describing ethnicity.

Btw, are Tony Blair & Gordon Brown Scottish or British?;)
They are pond life at best.

Whatabout other pan-national terms like "Scandinavian"? Should Swedes get upset about being lumped together with Danes?
Scandinavian doesn't have the same historical baggage that British does. Plus I don't think I've heard anyone pretending that there is a Scandinavian nation.

But as I said, It sounds weird for a leftwinged race relations organization to describe "British" as a racist term on the same level as negro. I think it is more of an attack on Britain's, & in particular England's, heritage. If British is racist then how about "Britain" from which British is derived?
That's the way the UK is these days.

Will the term "European" become racist because it offends Turks, Arabs & Africans living in Europe?
No. The EU are really pushing for a European super state, they're doing everything they can to make us feel more European and promote a false sense of European nationhood, it wont take off though, for the same reasons we rejected the 'British' identity.

Another thing about these lefties who champion Celtic Nationalism: They only do it because it is a way of being anti-English.
Which lefties are we talking about here? The reds in Ireland, the Labour party, the SWP, the Socialist party are all vehemently anti-nationalist.

What is the point of driving the British out of Ireland if they are replaced by Nigerians?
No point at all, but no-one here is advocating that.

[Loyalist]

No according to any sane interpretation of the word Nationalist. You cannot be a Nationalist if you would see your own Nation's sovereignty undermined by placing it in a Union that would put a foreign monarch and a foreign parliament in charge of it. I oppose the Union with England for the same reason I oppose the European Union. Every inch of the Irish nation belongs to the Irish people and it is up to us make our own laws and decide our own destiny free from all alien interference whether they're corrupt self-serving Englishmen or their counterparts in Brussels.

The Ulster-Scots, and indeed nearly all Protestants in the region, are not Irish. Their voice, their religion, their culture, and their very identity, would be drowned out in a unified state. You can complain about the Ulster question all you want, but the the fact that it's a dead issue is quite clear. Ireland will never be unified, and not even Labour would abandon the province.


Only very recently. Irish nationalism is traditionally based on blood and soil nationalism and the idea of the blood sacrifice, which is why every generation of Irishmen has produced martyrs willing to die for our country's freedom. Read some of the writings of Padraig Pearse (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=333) to get an idea of proper Irish nationalism instead of always obsessing about Gerry Adams.

So Irish nationalists, who overwhelmingly subscribe to the policies of either Sinn Fein or the SDLP, by your own admission, are misguided. That's some nationalist movement. :thumbs up


Also economically I would describe myself as something of a socialist anyway, the good of the nation ahead of the private greed that Capitalism creates.

Unless you're identifying as a National Socialist, then you have no right to call yourself an Irish nationalist, patriot, of whatever else it is you define yourself as. The left runs entirely contradictory to all forms of nationalism, preservationism, etc.


In your opinion.

Common sense; this isn't the 16th century.


You're entitled to your opinion but shouldn't it be up to people who are actually Scottish/Welsh to decide for themselves? And what's this about having no influence on a global scale? That's not the be all and end all you know. Not everyone has imperialistic Team America ideals.

Most "Scottish" nationalists come from a bitter Irish Republican background that's fuelled by a dislike for England; take away east Glasgow and most pro-SNP, anti-British sentiment would disappear overnight. The other votes for the SNP are coming from people dissatisfied with Labour's leadership. Any referendum on Scottish independence will be voted down, and the people's realization of what they're getting into, as well as the SNP's arrogance, thankfully cost them the Glenrothes by-election. If independence were to happen, which it won't, a good amount of the population would head to England anyway. There you go, the people of Scotland and Wales are deciding for themselves.


Propped up, lol. They were allowed to come here en masse so they could flood the labour market and drive wages down and they done just that. We don't need them for anything, there are currently 260,000 people unemployed in Ireland, we don't need any immigrants thank you very much.

That's what I said. Should I repeat it in Gaelic?


They're Unionist parties not nationalist parties.

Nationalist and unionist; the two are not incompatible as you've suggested. Your vision of nationalism is driven more by political sentiment than in ethnic terms, which is laughable.


Well the BNP and the NF are entitled to their opinion but if they ever get into power and start having desires on the Irish nation they'll get the exact same reaction as every other imperialistic British government got over the years. The Irish people are a separate distinct people, we don't want British rule, we don't want to be a part of any Union with you, get over it.

The BNP and NF would respond appropriately to any renewed effort by the IRA, its perhipherals, or the grassroots Irish people to threaten Ulster, or British rule elsewhere. The days of tear gas, truncheons, and internment would be history, instead replaced by bullets. At the very least, something resembling Margaret Thatcher's contingency plan from the 1980's to expel Catholics from Northern Ireland would be in the cards. If a future regime were to respond to the Irish in the aforementioned manner, it wouldn't be a moment too soon.

[Oisín]

The Ulster-Scots, and indeed nearly all Protestants in the region, are not Irish. Their voice, their religion, their culture, and their very identity, would be drowned out in a unified state.
There are roughly 1 million Unionists in the 6 occupied counties of Ulster, they make up 1.6% of the population of the UK. They would make up 16% of the population of a united Ireland. How would their voice be drowned out by joining a state that would see their political and cultural influence increase ten fold?
The ethnic population of the UK is continuing to rise at an alarming rate, in another 5,10,15 years the Unionists will have even less significance in UK politics. Do you think the Muslims and blacks will care about the Unionists when they start increasing their representation in Westminster?
Ulster Protestants were the founding fathers of Irish republicanism, the only way for them to survive as a people with a voice is to unite with us to create a new Ireland, structured and governed under a new constitution that is agreeable to all Irish people, of both the Nationalist tradition and the Unionist tradition. It could adopt some of the principles of Éire Nua (http://www.rsf.ie/eirenua.htm), where Ireland would become a federal state with each of the provinces having a parliament, this would still give the Ulster Protestants a form of self-government in Ulster.
Also it is only very recently that the Protestants in the 6 counties stopped identifying themselves as Irish, Ian Paisley, the God of Unionism said himself "I would never repudiate the fact that I am an Irishman".

You can complain about the Ulster question all you want, but the the fact that it's a dead issue is quite clear. Ireland will never be unified, and not even Labour would abandon the province.
All you can do is keep telling yourself that I suppose. For a united Ireland to to come into existence all that has to happen is 20/25% of Unionists need to be convinced that their identity and their interests would be looked after better by increasing their political influence from the 1.6% it is in the Union to the 16% it would be in a united Ireland. Now convincing them of that will be the hard part and you might say it's unthinkable that 20/25% could be brought around to the idea of a united Ireland but consider that in 10 years we have gone from a war to the DUP and Sinn Fein sharing power and working together. That was unthinkable 10 years ago. Who's to say what things will be like in another decade? And all that's needed is roughly a 20/25% swing and there will be a majority in favour of a united Ireland.

So Irish nationalists, who overwhelmingly subscribe to the policies of either Sinn Fein or the SDLP, by your own admission, are misguided. That's some nationalist movement. :thumbs up
Neither Sinn Fein or the SDLP are Nationalist parties. Sinn Fein have always proclaimed themselves a Republican party. God only knows what the SDLP are, but they're certainly not Nationalists. Sinn Fein and the SDLP get votes from the Nationalist community in the 6 counties because when Catholics were being burned out of their homes by loyalist mobs as the police stood by and watched Sinn Fein and the SDLP were the only parties that took any notice and tried to put a stop to it.

Unless you're identifying as a National Socialist, then you have no right to call yourself an Irish nationalist, patriot, of whatever else it is you define yourself as. The left runs entirely contradictory to all forms of nationalism, preservationism, etc.
I'm not a leftist though. I don't like tagging myself with any particular ideology as I'm yet to find one I agree with 100%, but if you're one of those people that needs to label everyone I suppose I could be called a bit of a Strasserist. And I don't appreciate having my patriotism questioned by a wannabe Englishman living in Canada who is a member of the Conservative party, who preach equality just as much as any leftist/liberal party.

Most "Scottish" nationalists come from a bitter Irish Republican background that's fuelled by a dislike for England; take away east Glasgow and most pro-SNP, anti-British sentiment would disappear overnight. The other votes for the SNP are coming from people dissatisfied with Labour's leadership. Any referendum on Scottish independence will be voted down, and the people's realization of what they're getting into, as well as the SNP's arrogance, thankfully cost them the Glenrothes by-election. If independence were to happen, which it won't, a good amount of the population would head to England anyway. There you go, the people of Scotland and Wales are deciding for themselves.
That's your opinion.

That's what I said. Should I repeat it in Gaelic?
:rolleyes:
You implied we need foreign workers, we don't.

Nationalist and unionist; the two are not incompatible as you've suggested. Your vision of nationalism is driven more by political sentiment than in ethnic terms, which is laughable.
Unionism and Nationalism are completely incompatible. How can any Scottish, Welsh or Irish person call themselves a Nationalist if they would advocate surrendering their Nation's sovereignty to a foreign monarch and parliament? Why stop at Unionism, why not go the whole hog and support a European Union superstate, it's the logical next step.

The BNP and NF would respond appropriately to any renewed effort by the IRA, its perhipherals, or the grassroots Irish people to threaten Ulster, or British rule elsewhere. The days of tear gas, truncheons, and internment would be history, instead replaced by bullets. At the very least, something resembling Margaret Thatcher's contingency plan from the 1980's to expel Catholics from Northern Ireland would be in the cards. If a future regime were to respond to the Irish in the aforementioned manner, it wouldn't be a moment too soon.
That was tried and tested on a massive scale over the last 8 centuries and we're still here and we're not going anywhere. The old IRA fought the British army to a standstill in 1921 and the Provos done the same during the Troubles, if the British army can accept they were unable to beat them you should too.

[Æmeric]

There are roughly 1 million Unionists in the 6 occupied counties of Ulster, they make up 1.6% of the population of the UK. They would make up 16% of the population of a united Ireland. How would their voice be drowned out by joining a state that would see their political and cultural influence increase ten fold? In Ireland there is the old Nationalist (Native Catholic) versus Loyalist (Settler Prostestant) divide that has existed for 400-years(?). One of the prime reasons of the plantation was to turn Ireland English (or British) & Prostestant. For the Loyalists this could be seen as the final surrender. If it could be accomplished. Forcing the Loyalists into a United Ireland might turn Ulster into another Lebanon. Despite more then 30-years of trouble, Ulster was never as bloody as other areas of the world that suffered ethnic or sectarian strife. One of the reasons Ireland was divided was because of the reality of a civil war in Ulster if all of Ireland was given Home Rule.

The ethnic population of the UK is continuing to rise at an alarming rate, in another 5,10,15 years the Unionists will have even less significance in UK politics. Do you think the Muslims and blacks will care about the Unionists when they start increasing their representation in Westminster?No, but the increase of non-Europid & Muslim populations in the UK & Ireland is another issue - one that ironically might at some point bring the Nationalists & Loyalists together.

Ulster Protestants were the founding fathers of Irish republicanism, the only way for them to survive as a people with a voice is to unite with us to create a new Ireland, structured and governed under a new constitution that is agreeable to all Irish people, of both the Nationalist tradition and the Unionist tradition. It could adopt some of the principles of Éire Nua (http://www.rsf.ie/eirenua.htm), where Ireland would become a federal state with each of the provinces having a parliament, this would still give the Ulster Protestants a form of self-government in Ulster.
Also it is only very recently that the Protestants in the 6 counties stopped identifying themselves as Irish, Ian Paisley, the God of Unionism said himself "I would never repudiate the fact that I am an Irishman".
Republicanism doesn't necessarily mean Democracy with universal suffrage. It certainly didn't when Irish Protestants started flirting with Republicanism when Catholics were disenfranchised. Catholic Emancipation must have turned them into Loyalists. But the Ulster settlers in the US were overwhelmingly Republican & anti-Monarchal, andrew Jackson being a prime example. And in the US of those of Ulster Protestant descent still call themselves Irish. Most Americans who call themselves Irish are of colonial era Ulster stock, thosae who are Irish -Catholic from the post 1840 migration tend to be concentrated in the urban areas of the Northeast & Great Lakes.



That was tried and tested on a massive scale over the last 8 centuries and we're still here and we're not going anywhere. The old IRA fought the British army to a standstill in 1921 and the Provos done the same during the Troubles, if the British army can accept they were unable to beat them you should too.
The British came close to defeating the IRA in 1921, it was political pressure from the US that allowed the Irish Free State to come into existance. That same political pressure prevented certain rebel leaders, Eamonn De Valera for example, from being hanged.

[Loyalist]

There are roughly 1 million Unionists in the 6 occupied counties of Ulster, they make up 1.6% of the population of the UK. They would make up 16% of the population of a united Ireland. How would their voice be drowned out by joining a state that would see their political and cultural influence increase ten fold?

They consider themselves British, like the majority of the people in the UK. They don't subscribe to the plastic nationalist trend that has taken root in Scotland and Wales. The Catholic Church and political parties who descend from factions of the old IRA do not represent Ulster Protestants, and the contributions of the latter would be shut out.


The ethnic population of the UK is continuing to rise at an alarming rate, in another 5,10,15 years the Unionists will have even less significance in UK politics. Do you think the Muslims and blacks will care about the Unionists when they start increasing their representation in Westminster?

Muslims and Negroes aren't going to take over Britain in fifteen years. Labour is on the way out, the BNP and the NF incease their vote share in every election, and public backlash will be too great. Muslims are simply an intrusive presence, whose threat to the United Kingdom, and to England, pales to that of Irish Republicans.


Ulster Protestants were the founding fathers of Irish republicanism, the only way for them to survive as a people with a voice is to unite with us to create a new Ireland, structured and governed under a new constitution that is agreeable to all Irish people, of both the Nationalist tradition and the Unionist tradition.

Presbyterians played a part in earlier republican movements because they were oppressed by Anglican powers in much the same manner as the Catholics. Keep in mind, the Orange Order itself began as a strictly Anglican organization. That shifted in the 19th century, when laws restricting dissenting Protestants were removed. Nowadays, those Presbyterians and Methodists who were once forced to stand with the indigenous Irish constitute the bulk of Unionists and Orangemen. My own lodge isn't particularly welcoming of Anglican members. Anyway, mistakes of the past aside, that's one million people in the province who prefer to live under the Union flag over the tricolour.


It could adopt some of the principles of Éire Nua (http://www.rsf.ie/eirenua.htm), where Ireland would become a federal state with each of the provinces having a parliament, this would still give the Ulster Protestants a form of self-government in Ulster.
Also it is only very recently that the Protestants in the 6 counties stopped identifying themselves as Irish, Ian Paisley, the God of Unionism said himself "I would never repudiate the fact that I am an Irishman".

Protestants embracing the Ulster-Scots identity over their previous Irish face is politics, nothing more. Why would the inhabitants of Northern Ireland continue to identify with the peoples of another nation, now foreign, when they now hold a distinct nationality, in addition to ethnicity and culture? Indeed, my grandfather, born before the partition, went from being Irish to British overnight. That, and the fact that he was a Protestant of Planter origin made him and his family very unwelcome after 1921. It seems the Republican populace has no problem putting on a friendlier face when it becomes evident it is the only hope for reaching their goals.

While on the subject of turncoats, please don't bring up Paisley and his inane comments over the years. For decades, that has-been was plotting with Republicans, and deceiving the very people who blindly followed him and his false rhetoric. More Unionists are beginning to accept him for what he his, and turning to parties that are truly dedicated to their community's ideals.


All you can do is keep telling yourself that I suppose. For a united Ireland to to come into existence all that has to happen is 20/25% of Unionists need to be convinced that their identity and their interests would be looked after better by increasing their political influence from the 1.6% it is in the Union to the 16% it would be in idea of a united Ireland but consider that in 10 years we have gone from a war to the DUP and Sinn Fein sharing power and working together. That was unthinkable 10 years ago. Who's to say what things will be like in another da united Ireland. Now convincing them of that will be the hard part and you might say it's unthinkable that 20/25% could be brought around to the ecade? And all that's needed is roughly a 20/25% swing and there will be a majority in favour of a united Ireland.

Ironically, the Catholic Unionist population is now standing at nearly 25% of Northern Ireland. That's according to a 2005 survey which can be found here: http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2005/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html. The same survey says that the Protestant Nationalist populace is about 3%. You would need an impossible swing in both communities for any democratic move to unify Ireland.


Neither Sinn Fein or the SDLP are Nationalist parties. Sinn Fein have always proclaimed themselves a Republican party. God only knows what the SDLP are, but they're certainly not Nationalists. Sinn Fein and the SDLP get votes from the Nationalist community in the 6 counties because when Catholics were being burned out of their homes by loyalist mobs as the police stood by and watched Sinn Fein and the SDLP were the only parties that took any notice and tried to put a stop to it.

Then what's stopping others with your views, if they truly exist, from forming a "true" nationalist party to replace Sinn Fein and the SDLP? It's not as if those Nationalists were killing and intimidating loyalists to provoke a reaction anyway... :rolleyes:


I'm not a leftist though. I don't like tagging myself with any particular ideology as I'm yet to find one I agree with 100%, but if you're one of those people that needs to label everyone I suppose I could be called a bit of a Strasserist. And I don't appreciate having my patriotism questioned by a wannabe Englishman living in Canada who is a member of the Conservative party, who preach equality just as much as any leftist/liberal party.

"Wannabe Englishman"? I know where my family is from, and on that note, most of my roots lie in Scotland and Ulster, but what does it matter, it's all British anyway. That's particularly laughable from somebody who accepts a half Slovak as an "Irish-American." The Conservative party is the only right-wing option in this nation, and they are at least cracking down on immigration, curtailing the advance of homosexual rights, boosting the military, etc. We have a "nationalist" party, but it's led by a Serbian immigrant, and has about a dozen members, mostly from his family. Hate crime laws here are far worse than the UK or Europe, and it's consequently much more difficult for such a movement to take root.


You implied we need foreign workers, we don't.

Nowhere did I do so, and I do cringe every time I hear about the flood of Slavs into Ireland. I highlighted that your first concern should be expelling Poles who are monopolizing the labour sector before focusing on anything else.


Unionism and Nationalism are completely incompatible. How can any Scottish, Welsh or Irish person call themselves a Nationalist if they would advocate surrendering their Nation's sovereignty to a foreign monarch and parliament? Why stop at Unionism, why not go the whole hog and support a European Union superstate, it's the logical next step.

That brand of nationalism, as I said, might have been practical centuries ago. But with the worldwide spread of liberalism and multiculturalism, that Stirpes brand of political nationalism is anachronistic. The English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh all share a relatively similar ancestry, descending from Celts and Germanics, and, inhabiting a small and isolated corner of Europe, should not be divided against one another. The European Union provides a mechanism for the migration of Latins, Slavs, Turks, and all other lower "European" into our lands, and that is in no way comparable to the British groups.


That was tried and tested on a massive scale over the last 8 centuries and we're still here and we're not going anywhere. The old IRA fought the British army to a standstill in 1921 and the Provos done the same during the Troubles, if the British army can accept they were unable to beat them you should too.

Britain has always had to watch its step, and take a ridiculously measured response to IRA activity for fear of global backlash. By cowering on the global stage over events like Bloody Sunday or the death of Bobby Sands, of course they were never going to defeat the Republican community. Things like concentration camps, summary executions, and forced expulsions will.

[Oisín]

In Ireland there is the old Nationalist (Native Catholic) versus Loyalist (Settler Prostestant) divide that has existed for 400-years(?). One of the prime reasons of the plantation was to turn Ireland English (or British) & Prostestant.
It was the only reason. Ireland wouldn't lie down and accept English rule so they tried to drive us off our own land (to hell or Connacht) and replace us with Scots who would be loyal to the English.

For the Loyalists this could be seen as the final surrender. If it could be accomplished. Forcing the Loyalists into a United Ireland might turn Ulster into another Lebanon. Despite more then 30-years of trouble, Ulster was never as bloody as other areas of the world that suffered ethnic or sectarian strife. One of the reasons Ireland was divided was because of the reality of a civil war in Ulster if all of Ireland was given Home Rule.
No-one said anything about forcing them into a united Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, which the vast majority of the people of Ireland both north and south voted for, says unification will happen when the majority of the people in the 6 counties vote for it to happen. Unionism is nothing more than a political ideology. We just need to show the Ulster Protestants that their interests can be looked after better by being 16% of the population of a united Ireland than being a tiny 1.6% minority within the UK.
The only reason it got to the stage where a Civil War could happen if Home Rule was brought in is because the British authorities who were governing Ireland at the time allowed the Ulster Volunteers to import all the arms they needed. The same situation would not arise again if the Unionists themselves were voting for unification by their own free will.

No, but the increase of non-Europid & Muslim populations in the UK & Ireland is another issue - one that ironically might at some point bring the Nationalists & Loyalists together.
The Ulster Protestants who currently identify with Unionism make up a tiny and shrinking minority within the UK, they'd be much better off getting out of it before they fade even more into the wilderness. For all their loyalty when was the last time their beloved Queen thanked them for their loyalty? In her 56 years on the throne she's only bothered to visit her most loyal citizens in the province 13 times. When was the last time the Queen, or any British PM assured them that they would always remain part of the Union? The Good Friday Agreement was Britain's way of washing it's hands of them.

Republicanism doesn't necessarily mean Democracy with universal suffrage. It certainly didn't when Irish Protestants started flirting with Republicanism when Catholics were disenfranchised. Catholic Emancipation must have turned them into Loyalists.
The Irish Protestants who founded The Society of United Irishmen to break the connection with England were the ones calling for Catholic emancipation! Their motto was 'Let us bury our animosities with the bones of our ancestors.'

"To unite Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter under the common name of Irishmen in order break the connection with England, the never failing source of all our political evils, that was my aim". - Theobald Wolfe Tone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobald_Wolfe_Tone)

But the Ulster settlers in the US were overwhelmingly Republican & anti-Monarchal, andrew Jackson being a prime example.
I read a bit about Andrew Jackson recently, very interesting man.

And in the US of those of Ulster Protestant descent still call themselves Irish. Most Americans who call themselves Irish are of colonial era Ulster stock, thosae who are Irish -Catholic from the post 1840 migration tend to be concentrated in the urban areas of the Northeast & Great Lakes.

Quite right too, they are Irish.

The British came close to defeating the IRA in 1921, it was political pressure from the US that allowed the Irish Free State to come into existance. That same political pressure prevented certain rebel leaders, Eamonn De Valera for example, from being hanged.
In the last free election to be held on an all Ireland basis in 1918 the Irish people north and south voted overwhelmingly for Sinn Fein and for a free united Ireland, even if they had defeated the IRA they would never have been able to maintain their grip on the country.

[Oisín]

They consider themselves British, like the majority of the people in the UK. They don't subscribe to the plastic nationalist trend that has taken root in Scotland and Wales.
They consider themselves British, you said it. Doesn't mean they are. They consider themselves British in the same way that every black and Paki immigrant considers themselves British, it's a completely meaningless term for describing ethnicity. Up until around the start of the troubles they would have said they were Irish, the only difference being they are Protestant Irishmen who are currently Unionists. They were Irish Republicans in the past and they can be Irish Republicans again.
'Plastic nationalist' - coming from you? Lol. I know of one Scottish nationalist on this forum, if she sees that I hope she takes issue with you.

The Catholic Church and political parties who descend from factions of the old IRA do not represent Ulster Protestants, and the contributions of the latter would be shut out.
I've already shown you they would have ten times the political representation they currently have as part of the Union. If it were the case that the Éire Nua plan was implemented they would be the majority in their own Ulster parliament. If not they would still have roughly 1/6th of the seats in any national parliament, they would hold the balance of power and be guaranteed to be a part of every future government, hell of alot better than they get at the minute. When was the last time they actually had a real say in the goings on at Westminster? To say they would have no representation and that they would somehow be second class citizens is a complete lie.
I notice you've thrown in the old Catholic church argument as well, which is pretty typical of loyalists who have never set foot in Ireland. You'll be happy to know that the rampant consumerism brought on by the Celtic Tiger economic boom has rendered the Catholic church pretty much irrelevant since the early 90's. Religion and sectarianism is only an issue in the 6 counties. There are Orange Order parades and Orange lodges down south too and there's never trouble at them.

Muslims and Negroes aren't going to take over Britain in fifteen years. Labour is on the way out, the BNP and the NF incease their vote share in every election, and public backlash will be too great. Muslims are simply an intrusive presence, whose threat to the United Kingdom, and to England, pales to that of Irish Republicans.
Re-read my post, I never said they were going to take it over I said they were going to be increasing their representation in government/Westminster. The ethnic population is continuing to grow at an alarming rate and they will vote for their own kind, of course there's going to be more black and Muslim MPs, and do you think they give two hoots about Ulster?
The BNP and the NF are slowly gaining ground, but they're not going to be in government in 15 years are they, no way. I'd wager there'll be more brown faces in Westminster than Nationalist MPs in 10 years time.

Presbyterians played a part in earlier republican movements because they were oppressed by Anglican powers in much the same manner as the Catholics. Keep in mind, the Orange Order itself began as a strictly Anglican organization. That shifted in the 19th century, when laws restricting dissenting Protestants were removed. Nowadays, those Presbyterians and Methodists who were once forced to stand with the indigenous Irish constitute the bulk of Unionists and Orangemen.
I know my own country's history :coffee:

Anyway, mistakes of the past aside, that's one million people in the province who prefer to live under the Union flag over the tricolour.
For the time being :thumbs up

Protestants embracing the Ulster-Scots identity over their previous Irish face is politics, nothing more. Why would the inhabitants of Northern Ireland continue to identify with the peoples of another nation, now foreign, when they now hold a distinct nationality, in addition to ethnicity and culture? Indeed, my grandfather, born before the partition, went from being Irish to British overnight.
If your entire make up, your nationality, your ethnicity and your culture can change to something completely different overnight then what does that tell you about the 'British' identity? And you call the Scots, Welsh and Irish 'plastic nationalists' lol.

That, and the fact that he was a Protestant of Planter origin made him and his family very unwelcome after 1921. It seems the Republican populace has no problem putting on a friendlier face when it becomes evident it is the only hope for reaching their goals.
The Irish Republicanism espoused by the great Wolfe Tone and continued on by Emmet, Pearse etc. was never meant to be a sectarian conflict. That it descended into sectarianism at local levels every so often is regrettable but understandable and Protestants carry as much blame for that as Catholics.

While on the subject of turncoats, please don't bring up Paisley and his inane comments over the years. For decades, that has-been was plotting with Republicans, and deceiving the very people who blindly followed him and his false rhetoric.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in my life. I don't suppose you have proof of this do you?

More Unionists are beginning to accept him for what he his, and turning to parties that are truly dedicated to their community's ideals.
How can they be turning away from him when he's already retired? I know you live half way round the world but if you're going to insist on arguing about my country at least try and keep up to date.
Which parties are they turning to and where is your evidence to support this?

Ironically, the Catholic Unionist population is now standing at nearly 25% of Northern Ireland. That's according to a 2005 survey which can be found here: http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2005/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html. The same survey says that the Protestant Nationalist populace is about 3%. You would need an impossible swing in both communities for any democratic move to unify Ireland.
Well bear in mind that that is just a survey and as such it isn't an accurate representation of the entire provinces attitudes, it's just the opinions of the people they happened to speak to on the day. Better to look at who got elected in the last Assembly elections in 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2007). In those elections Unionist parties got 47% of the vote and Nationalist parties got 41% of the vote.
It's not impossible.

Then what's stopping others with your views, if they truly exist, from forming a "true" nationalist party to replace Sinn Fein and the SDLP?
Forming another Nationalist party in the 6 counties would be stupid beyond belief, Sinn Fein and the SDLP are firmly entrenched within their communities and any new party would get nowhere, just look at how Fianna Fail's recent foray into politics there ran out of steam.
I think any party like the BNP is a waste of time anyway, they'll never be allowed anywhere near power and they have to abandon nearly every core principal they have just to get council seats. I think trying to build a strong Nationalist movement is more worthwhile, educate the people on Nationalist topics, commemorate our patriot dead, Nationalist/cultural magazines etc. I've already said in another thread I'm a Craobh Gal Gréine supporter.

It's not as if those Nationalists were killing and intimidating loyalists to provoke a reaction anyway... :rolleyes:
?

"Wannabe Englishman"? I know where my family is from, and on that note, most of my roots lie in Scotland and Ulster, but what does it matter, it's all British anyway.
So your mostly Scottish and Irish but you consider yourself English, how does that work out? It may be all British to you now, but the British identity can just change overnight (your words) can't it.

That's particularly laughable from somebody who accepts a half Slovak as an "Irish-American."
1/8 Slovak.

The Conservative party is the only right-wing option in this nation, and they are at least cracking down on immigration, curtailing the advance of homosexual rights, boosting the military, etc. We have a "nationalist" party, but it's led by a Serbian immigrant, and has about a dozen members, mostly from his family. Hate crime laws here are far worse than the UK or Europe, and it's consequently much more difficult for such a movement to take root.
You vote for them because you think they're not as bad as the rest then? Do the Conservative party support the hate crime laws which prevent a proper Nationalist movement taking root?

Nowhere did I do so, and I do cringe every time I hear about the flood of Slavs into Ireland. I highlighted that your first concern should be expelling Poles who are monopolizing the labour sector before focusing on anything else.
They're starting to leave thankfully although not as quickly or in enough numbers. Immigrants are a symptom of the sickness, I think it's more productive to focus on the sickness rather than the symptoms. The number one focus for me is a united Ireland free from all foreign interference.

That brand of nationalism, as I said, might have been practical centuries ago. But with the worldwide spread of liberalism and multiculturalism, that Stirpes brand of political nationalism is anachronistic. The English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh all share a relatively similar ancestry, descending from Celts and Germanics, and, inhabiting a small and isolated corner of Europe, should not be divided against one another. The European Union provides a mechanism for the migration of Latins, Slavs, Turks, and all other lower "European" into our lands, and that is in no way comparable to the British groups.
Just because you said it doesn't mean it's true. We don't have to be divided against each other, but we don't have to be forced into a Union we don't want either.

Britain has always had to watch its step, and take a ridiculously measured response to IRA activity for fear of global backlash. By cowering on the global stage over events like Bloody Sunday or the death of Bobby Sands, of course they were never going to defeat the Republican community. Things like concentration camps, summary executions, and forced expulsions will.
Do you realise how ridiculous you sound? What you're advocating is ethnic cleansing the Irish from a part of our own country. How about re-reading the forum rules (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/misc.php?do=cfrules) before you do that again.

[Loyalist]

They consider themselves British, you said it. Doesn't mean they are. They consider themselves British in the same way that every black and Paki immigrant considers themselves British, it's a completely meaningless term for describing ethnicity. Up until around the start of the troubles they would have said they were Irish, the only difference being they are Protestant Irishmen who are currently Unionists. They were Irish Republicans in the past and they can be Irish Republicans again.

There's a distinction between ethnic groups who have inhabited the same, small islands for a millenia, forging a common nationality, and recent migrants from alien racial backgrounds. One cannot fairly contrast "British" people from Ulster to "British" people who arrived from Calcutta a decade or so back.

Protestants who allied themselves with Republicans centuries ago did so purely out of opportunism, and it's only natural that some common ground with Catholics would be embraced if the two faced similar discrimination. When those anti-dissenter laws disappeared, so too did that common Irish identity. Presbyterians, Methodists, and the rest were bitter, and not sincere in their alliance with Catholic Republicans. With their foot finally in the door, they were only too pleased to assume a British Unionist stance, and rightfully so. It's no coincidence that the bulk of Unionists today are from dissenting denominations.


'Plastic nationalist' - coming from you? Lol. I know of one Scottish nationalist on this forum, if she sees that I hope she takes issue with you.

I hope she does; Celtic nationalists are always good for a laugh.


I've already shown you they would have ten times the political representation they currently have as part of the Union. If it were the case that the Éire Nua plan was implemented they would be the majority in their own Ulster parliament. If not they would still have roughly 1/6th of the seats in any national parliament, they would hold the balance of power and be guaranteed to be a part of every future government, hell of alot better than they get at the minute. When was the last time they actually had a real say in the goings on at Westminster? To say they would have no representation and that they would somehow be second class citizens is a complete lie.
I notice you've thrown in the old Catholic church argument as well, which is pretty typical of loyalists who have never set foot in Ireland. You'll be happy to know that the rampant consumerism brought on by the Celtic Tiger economic boom has rendered the Catholic church pretty much irrelevant since the early 90's. Religion and sectarianism is only an issue in the 6 counties. There are Orange Order parades and Orange lodges down south too and there's never trouble at them.

Cultural and religious arguments aside, the fact of the matter is that Unionists consider themselves to be British, and should not be subjected to having a foreign nationality imposed on them. I've heard all this deceptive nonsense about preserving their Ulster identity in their own Parliament, and while I still don't believe it, it's an irrelevant point just the same. They don't want an Ulster Parliament, or any other attempt at representation in the Republic; Unionists are content with their position within the United Kingdom, and that will not change. While the only representation they need is British sovereignty in Ulster, they very well could have a say if the conflict didn't force the populace to vote for regional parties in Westminster, and instead focus on mainstream parties and the applicable issues. You also haven't considered that, even if it were to happen with widespread support, there will always be loyalist extremists who would take up the fight in much the same manner as the Republicans decades ago. There would be damage inflicted and lives lost, adding further complication to any such eventuality.

As for the Orange Order, animosity towards the organization in Ulster will not simply cease following unification. I don't think the residents of Garvaghy Road will be waving Orange flags as the procession moves through at any point in the future. The only singificant parades I'm aware of in the Republic are in Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, which are Ulster counties still possessing measurable Protestant minorities. I've seen enough trouble, even if simply from rowdy youth and hecklers, at those marches as well.


Re-read my post, I never said they were going to take it over I said they were going to be increasing their representation in government/Westminster. The ethnic population is continuing to grow at an alarming rate and they will vote for their own kind, of course there's going to be more black and Muslim MPs, and do you think they give two hoots about Ulster?
The BNP and the NF are slowly gaining ground, but they're not going to be in government in 15 years are they, no way. I'd wager there'll be more brown faces in Westminster than Nationalist MPs in 10 years time.

A few Arab and Negro MPs in Westminster aren't going to make a difference. I woud only by worried if one had a chance of becoming Prime Minister, but that looks unlikely at any point in the near future. While of course Ulster isn't high on any agenda around Parliament, no government, not even one with a good number of ethnics, would hand Northern Ireland over to the Republic. As the population is becoming extremely polarized, including in a racial sense, nationalist MPs have a realistic chance of curbing the spread of immigrants, inluding into government.


I know my own country's history :coffee:

You wouldn't know it at times.


If your entire make up, your nationality, your ethnicity and your culture can change to something completely different overnight then what does that tell you about the 'British' identity? And you call the Scots, Welsh and Irish 'plastic nationalists' lol.

Those "Irish" Protestants in throughout the nation always identified as British subjects, and they would certainly not maintain what became, after 1921, a foreign nationality to define their identity. Why would a pro-Union, Ulster Protestant continue identify with a Catholic Nationalist, now in another country?


The Irish Republicanism espoused by the great Wolfe Tone and continued on by Emmet, Pearse etc. was never meant to be a sectarian conflict. That it descended into sectarianism at local levels every so often is regrettable but understandable and Protestants carry as much blame for that as Catholics.

It is undeniable that, in grassroots communities in Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants quite simply don't like eachother. The entire conflict isn't religion-based, but religion is a factor. In cases of inter-marriage, for example, communities were, and still are, generally hostile to both parties. Whether or not that's a modern development, it's still a blow to any views that Wolfe Tone or like-minded people espoused.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in my life. I don't suppose you have proof of this do you?

For years, Paisley criticized any politican, particularly Unionists, who negotiated, or held power with, Sinn Fein or any other Republican entity. When it most suited him, he sat down with Gerry Adams and propelled SF into joint power with himself. Taking into account his quotes and historical positions, that is the ultimate act of hypocrisy. There is also evidence that has recently come to light suggesting he held secret talks with Republicans during the Anglo-Irish Agreement controversy in the 1980's.


How can they be turning away from him when he's already retired? I know you live half way round the world but if you're going to insist on arguing about my country at least try and keep up to date.
Which parties are they turning to and where is your evidence to support this?

Paisley is still an MP, and has made it clear he is standing for re-election at the next contest. His legacy still manifests itself in every element of the DUP and the present Northern Ireland Assembly. I also have no doubt that, given who he is, he still holds a tremendous amount of influence in the party.

The Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV), a DUP splinter group, held its own against the big two Unionist parties in a council by-election, less than a year after coming into existence. We'll have to wait and see, but I think it will perform quite well in upcoming elections, particularly as anger over the St. Andrew's Agreement and the DUP sellout to Sinn Fein mounts.


Well bear in mind that that is just a survey and as such it isn't an accurate representation of the entire provinces attitudes, it's just the opinions of the people they happened to speak to on the day. Better to look at who got elected in the last Assembly elections in 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2007). In those elections Unionist parties got 47% of the vote and Nationalist parties got 41% of the vote.
It's not impossible.

Anything is technically possible, but, being realistic, there isn't going to be a big pro-Republican swing among Unionists. I personally find that one quarter estimate for Catholic Unionists are bit questionable, but we'll wait and see.


Forming another Nationalist party in the 6 counties would be stupid beyond belief, Sinn Fein and the SDLP are firmly entrenched within their communities and any new party would get nowhere, just look at how Fianna Fail's recent foray into politics there ran out of steam.
I think any party like the BNP is a waste of time anyway, they'll never be allowed anywhere near power and they have to abandon nearly every core principal they have just to get council seats. I think trying to build a strong Nationalist movement is more worthwhile, educate the people on Nationalist topics, commemorate our patriot dead, Nationalist/cultural magazines etc. I've already said in another thread I'm a Craobh Gal Gréine supporter.

Exactly, and whether or not your brand of "nationalism" is valid, it is, and will always be, the minority in that sort of sentiment. The BNP has a chance at real electoral success; they've picked up council seats, London Assembly seats, and I believe they have a chance at gaining MPs within the next decade or so. Immigrants are at least helping to fuel increasing British nationalist feelings.


So your mostly Scottish and Irish but you consider yourself English, how does that work out? It may be all British to you now, but the British identity can just change overnight (your words) can't it.

I never said I consider myself English, I said I consider myself British. My ancestry is an amalgamation of ethnic groups from the British Isles, and many in the UK have ancestors from at least one of the other Home Nations. I've yet to meet any native of the region on these forums who are pure-bred English, Scottish, etc.


1/8 Slovak.

1/8 Slovak, 1/8 Polish, 1/8 Austrian (likely Jewish at that), and only one grandparent had any recent Irish ancestry. Exactly what we want in the Irish dispoara. :rolleyes:


You vote for them because you think they're not as bad as the rest then? Do the Conservative party support the hate crime laws which prevent a proper Nationalist movement taking root?

Yes, I do, because they are quite literally the only hope we have. Abstaining from voting simply because I don't want to support "the best of the worst" isn't helping matters. Furthermore, they actually are working on dismantling several laws and legal entities which exist to combat free speech and impose draconian hate laws, so there is some light at the end of the tunnel.


They're starting to leave thankfully although not as quickly or in enough numbers. Immigrants are a symptom of the sickness, I think it's more productive to focus on the sickness rather than the symptoms. The number one focus for me is a united Ireland free from all foreign interference.

Is there any actual proof that they're packing up and heading home? Either way, some will stay behind, and as far as I'm concerned one Slav is too many. That won't be the end either, particularly if Turkey ever gets into Europe.


Do you realise how ridiculous you sound? What you're advocating is ethnic cleansing the Irish from a part of our own country. How about re-reading the forum rules (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/misc.php?do=cfrules) before you do that again.

On the contrary, you're advocating the removal of Britain from its own territory. By keeping Ulster British, we would be safeguarding the existence of the Ulster-Scots, as well as other related groups in the province who wish to remain part of the UK. The Irish cannot be cleansed from land that is not their's, and do not belong in a foreign land if they choose to continue to threaten the stability of the region in question.

[Oisín]

There's a distinction between ethnic groups who have inhabited the same, small islands for a millenia, forging a common nationality and recent migrants from alien racial backgrounds. One cannot fairly contrast "British" people from Ulster to "British" people who arrived from Calcutta a decade or so back.
So you admit that the Irish, Scottish, English and Welsh are different ethnic groups, that's what I was waiting for:thumbs up
There is no British ethnicity. There is no British people, there is no British culture and there is no historical basis for a British nation. The United Kingdom was created to serve the political, military, strategic and economic needs of the English, not to unite a single British people into one country.

I hope she does; Celtic nationalists are always good for a laugh.
Your arrogance knows no bounds.

Cultural and religious arguments aside, the fact of the matter is that Unionists consider themselves to be British, and should not be subjected to having a foreign nationality imposed on them.
Where in this thread have I said they should have a foreign nationality imposed on them? The only people who do that are the British ;)

I've heard all this deceptive nonsense about preserving their Ulster identity in their own Parliament, and while I still don't believe it, it's an irrelevant point just the same.
Deceptive nonsense? Just because you think that's what it is doesn't make it so. The problem with you is your blinded by sectarianism and you're over emotional. I want my country to be united and I want my Protestant brothers and sisters in the north east to be a part of that so I offer a solution that would give them a degree of self autonomy and TEN TIMES the political influence they have in the UK to allay any fears of their voice being drowned out as you put it. Because you don't have any rational argument against it you dismiss it as a pack of lies.

They don't want an Ulster Parliament, or any other attempt at representation in the Republic
Well with the devolved NI assembly they're halfway there already.

Unionists are content with their position within the United Kingdom, and that will not change.
Content with being an irrelevant minority with no political clout? You know starting next year the common travel zone is being scrapped. When flying to mainland Britain they will be treated the same as anyone else travelling from a foreign country and be subject to passport checks.

While the only representation they need is British sovereignty in Ulster, they very well could have a say if the conflict didn't force the populace to vote for regional parties in Westminster, and instead focus on mainstream parties and the applicable issues.
While the 6 counties remain a part of the UK the vast majority of the people there will only vote for regional parties. I think it's a good thing too, better than voting for either the Conservative and Labour party who between them have destroyed Britain.

You also haven't considered that, even if it were to happen with widespread support, there will always be loyalist extremists who would take up the fight in much the same manner as the Republicans decades ago. There would be damage inflicted and lives lost, adding further complication to any such eventuality.
Doubtful. Their track record in the recent Troubles is nothing to shout about. Despite being fed information from both the British army and the RUC the loyalist paramilitaries showed themselves incapable of little more than abducting and murdering innocent Catholics. While the British army described the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6276416.stm) the loyalist paramilitaries, despite all the help they were getting from the British army and the police, were labelled "little more than a collection of gangsters" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6276416.stm).
Having lived through 30 years of bloody war both sides want peace, that's why they voted for the GFA. There really isn't an appetite for more fighting.

As for the Orange Order, animosity towards the organization in Ulster will not simply cease following unification. I don't think the residents of Garvaghy Road will be waving Orange flags as the procession moves through at any point in the future.
The problem with Orange parades in the 6 counties is they are not about celebrating religion, they're triumphalist marches that deliberately set out to antagonise the Nationalist population by showing them who's top dog. Up until the British army stepped in when the Troubles kicked off the Orange marches were an excuse for loyalists to run riot in Catholic areas and burn down their houses while the RUC stood by and let it happen, of course there's going to be animosity. Give it time and while they're never going to wave Orange flags hopefully they will just get indifferent to them.

The only singificant parades I'm aware of in the Republic are in Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, which are Ulster counties still possessing measurable Protestant minorities. I've seen enough trouble, even if simply from rowdy youth and hecklers, at those marches as well.
Seen it with your own eyes or read it on an internet forum? Let's see some news links shall we?
An Orange day out in the Republic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1430423.stm)
Ó Cuív grants €250,000 to promote Orange Order (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0205/1201903494877.html)
Thousands join Orange parade (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3882555.stm)

A few Arab and Negro MPs in Westminster aren't going to make a difference.
You'd better hope not eh.

I woud only by worried if one had a chance of becoming Prime Minister, but that looks unlikely at any point in the near future.
No just more of the old Labour/Conservative misrule for the time being.

While of course Ulster isn't high on any agenda around Parliament, no government, not even one with a good number of ethnics, would hand Northern Ireland over to the Republic.
It's not about handing it over, it's not down to the UK any more. Do you know anything about what was agreed and signed into law with the peace process? By the sounds of it you don't have a clue. The UK has washed it's hands of NI, a referendum on the future of NI can be held every 7 years, that's why the focus now is on convincing the Protestant people that their future is as equal partners in a united Ireland.

As the population is becoming extremely polarized, including in a racial sense, nationalist MPs have a realistic chance of curbing the spread of immigrants, inluding into government.
A Nationalist MP cannot stop a black or Asian person getting into government, they are British citizens, they have the same rights as white British citizens. That all inclusive 'British' identity is back to bite you in the arse.

Those "Irish" Protestants in throughout the nation always identified as British subjects, and they would certainly not maintain what became, after 1921, a foreign nationality to define their identity. Why would a pro-Union, Ulster Protestant continue identify with a Catholic Nationalist, now in another country?
Up until the Act of Union in 1801 Ireland was a separate country that shared the same monarch as Great Britain. They saw themselves as fully fledged Irishmen who were loyal to the Irish crown. After the Act of Union they still regarded themselves as Irishmen except now they were loyal to the crown of the United Kingdom and were Unionists in their political outlook. This stayed the same up until relatively recently when they started to distance themselves from their Irish identity, the key is getting them to once again embrace their Irish identity as they have done throughout the centuries. Unionism is only a political outlook it is not an identity and as such it can be changed.

It is undeniable that, in grassroots communities in Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants quite simply don't like eachother. The entire conflict isn't religion-based, but religion is a factor. In cases of inter-marriage, for example, communities were, and still are, generally hostile to both parties. Whether or not that's a modern development, it's still a blow to any views that Wolfe Tone or like-minded people espoused.
It's a problem that can be over come though. Now that there is peace dialogue can start taking place and cross community relations are starting to improve. It will be a slow process of course but it can be done.

For years, Paisley criticized any politican, particularly Unionists, who negotiated, or held power with, Sinn Fein or any other Republican entity. When it most suited him, he sat down with Gerry Adams and propelled SF into joint power with himself. Taking into account his quotes and historical positions, that is the ultimate act of hypocrisy.
It was the only thing he could do. The people of NI voted for the GFA and power sharing. The alternative to sharing power with Sinn Fein is that NI will be run jointly by the British and Irish governments giving the Republic of Ireland a direct say in the running of NI. For Unionists power sharing with nationalists is preferable than being run by the Irish government.

There is also evidence that has recently come to light suggesting he held secret talks with Republicans during the Anglo-Irish Agreement controversy in the 1980's.
Don't be so naive, everyone was having secret talks with everyone throughout the 80's and 90's to try and end the war. I'd recommend you pick up a copy of Ed Moloney's A Secret History of the IRA if you want to find out what was going on behind the scenes during the 80's. It'd be a real eye opener for you.

Paisley is still an MP, and has made it clear he is standing for re-election at the next contest. His legacy still manifests itself in every element of the DUP and the present Northern Ireland Assembly. I also have no doubt that, given who he is, he still holds a tremendous amount of influence in the party.
He has very little influence left in the DUP, he was as good as told that if he didn't walk he'd be pushed.

The Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV), a DUP splinter group, held its own against the big two Unionist parties in a council by-election, less than a year after coming into existence. We'll have to wait and see, but I think it will perform quite well in upcoming elections, particularly as anger over the St. Andrew's Agreement and the DUP sellout to Sinn Fein mounts.
Anything that splinters and harms the Unionist vote is a good thing IMO. Once again the DUP did not sell out, they were left with the choices of either sharing power with Sinn Fein or let the Irish government have a say in the running of NI.

Anything is technically possible, but, being realistic, there isn't going to be a big pro-Republican swing among Unionists.
It's not really about turning Unionists into Republicans, as I can't really envisage the likes of Johnny Adair standing on a podium with Gerry Adams. It's about showing them that they have nothing to fear from unification. They need to be convinced that they are better off in a country where there traditions will be respected and protected and where they will have ten times the political influence.

I personally find that one quarter estimate for Catholic Unionists are bit questionable, but we'll wait and see.
I think it's absurd.

Exactly, and whether or not your brand of "nationalism" is valid, it is, and will always be, the minority in that sort of sentiment.
...and always will be? It was only 60-80 years ago that my brand of nationalism was the norm for the majority of people in this country.

The BNP has a chance at real electoral success; they've picked up council seats, London Assembly seats, and I believe they have a chance at gaining MPs within the next decade or so. Immigrants are at least helping to fuel increasing British nationalist feelings.
Can you imagine how much worse the situation will be in Britain if they have to wait 20 years just to get a Nationalist MP?

I never said I consider myself English, I said I consider myself British. My ancestry is an amalgamation of ethnic groups from the British Isles, and many in the UK have ancestors from at least one of the other Home Nations. I've yet to meet any native of the region on these forums who are pure-bred English, Scottish, etc.
Pure-bred Irishman right here:thumbs up
So you do accept then that there is no British ethnicity?

1/8 Slovak, 1/8 Polish, 1/8 Austrian (likely Jewish at that), and only one grandparent had any recent Irish ancestry. Exactly what we want in the Irish dispoara. :rolleyes:
So now he's a Jew without the slightest bit of proof? He's banned from the forum anyway. Listen, if someone is half Irish and the rest European I don't have a problem with them taking an interest in Irish nationalism. Do I want people like him moving to Ireland? No. But I don't have a problem with them exploring one half of their heritage. Would you rather he surrendered himself to Americanism and voted Obama?

Yes, I do, because they are quite literally the only hope we have. Abstaining from voting simply because I don't want to support "the best of the worst" isn't helping matters.
Well you can be sure that voting for them isn't helping matters either. Are they against race mixing? Are they against all immigration of non-European stock? If the answer to those questions is no and you continue to vote for them then you are part of the problem.

Furthermore, they actually are working on dismantling several laws and legal entities which exist to combat free speech and impose draconian hate laws, so there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
Source?

Is there any actual proof that they're packing up and heading home? Either way, some will stay behind, and as far as I'm concerned one Slav is too many. That won't be the end either, particularly if Turkey ever gets into Europe.
Poles flee ailing Irish economy (http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/poles-flee-ailing-irish-economy-1511401.html)
Also I can tell you from personal experience a lot of them are finally starting to bugger off.

On the contrary, you're advocating the removal of Britain from its own territory. By keeping Ulster British, we would be safeguarding the existence of the Ulster-Scots, as well as other related groups in the province who wish to remain part of the UK. The Irish cannot be cleansed from land that is not their's, and do not belong in a foreign land if they choose to continue to threaten the stability of the region in question.
I'm advocating dialogue with the unionist community to try and end centuries of mistrust and misunderstanding so they can finally take their place as equal partners in a united Ireland where their voice and political influence will be ten times what it currently is in the UK, a country which has already sold them down the river anyway.
Unionism is an ideology entirely based on fear and a siege mentality. They were planted here by Queen Elizabeth I on stolen Irish land and they mistreated the Catholic majority for centuries, their fear has always been that one day we would take back what was ours and treat them the same way they treated us. If we can show them they have nothing to fear in a united Ireland and we are willing to 'bury our animosities with the bones of our ancestors' forget the past and work for the future then I see no reason why they can't, in time, be brought on board and we can all work together for the future of our children regardless of what tradition they come from.

[Treffie]

Rugby legend Gareth Edwards, who won 53 caps for Wales and ten for the British Lions, said last night: ‘I’m very proud to be Welsh and if anybody asks me where I’m from, I’ll say Wales. But I’m also British – I’ve played for the British Lions and I’m very proud of that too.’

These are my sentiments, I'm Welsh and British, why should we bend to the PC brigade once again?

Makes me really mad I say!:mad:

[TheGreatest]

Seems just about anyone can claim to be anything in the United States. Some Americans who are regarded as being ''German-American'', could never pass for it back on the continent.


Pete Wentz coming to mind...

[Oresai]

Particularly in the case of Scotland and Wales, the countries in question would have no influence on a global scale whatsoever, and a population, inadaquate for a sustainable workforce, which could only exist in a leftist welfare system.

Pardon? The Scots have enough influence upon a global scale to have descendants in many countries who have risen to political and cultural positions of considerable power. Scots engineers, educators and scientists alone have influenced their spheres over many decades. I see no reason why that should cease today and in the future.
There are many industries scattered throughout Scotland which bear up under their own workforce and influence in their own areas locally and globally.
On a personal note, I consider myself Scottish and not British, because I oppose the Union and always have. Why is that wrong? Surely any other person from another country upon which such a state had been forced would feel the same way depending upon their historical, cultural and political mindset?
I am Scots born and bred. For goodness sake, there is even vast and noticable cultural differences between the Scots highlands and lowlands, never mind Scots and English! We DO retain our Celtic roots even today, despite the attempt over the centuries for our ethnic heritage to be quietly snuffed out and replaced by a homogenised, sanitised, tamed Anglo Saxon dearth of anything meaningful for the sake of control over a country they know they have no ethical right to. :mad:
Being anti Union does not automatically make of us rabid campaigners who are liable to firebomb the nearest English settler (no matter how much some of us would like to...) for we do have self control and a healthy realisation that despite what the nay sayers would have us think, Independance from the enforced Union WILL give us greater control over not only our economy but our cultural heritage and that we WILL hold our own quite easily and profitably in the wider European world.
Perhaps folks with such broadly misinformed opinions should walk a mile in the shoes of the people they have that opinion about for a while, yes? ;)
The outside view is usually tainted by those hostile to the countries they claim cannot subsist without their aid. :rolleyes:


The Big Lie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'While Gordon Brown fumes in the Treasury, 'wee Angus', as the Finance Minister Angus McKay is affectionately known, has been trying to work out the numbers. Official sources cannot confirm that his first reaction on looking at them was 'Oh, shite'. He is caught between Henry's spending spree and the Barnett squeeze. Something has to give.'
Iain MacWhirter in the Sunday Herald, 4 th February 2001.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Big Lie - Scottish Revenue Taxes
by Niall U'Aislainn
For countless years, the British Unionist Parties have been telling the people of Scotland, that they are subsidized by the English Taxpayer and that Independence is the certain road to ruin. Just recently some senior members of the Labour party have repeated this statement. Mr Trevor Philips in his Election Manifesto for the Lord Mayorship of London called for this subsidy to stop and the money be given to London instead Even from February 1990 in the days of the handbag wielding Margaret Thatcher quote `We English, who are a marvellous people, are really very generous to Scotland.' She was not alone in this, Scotland is constantly being sniped at by ignorant Tories who accuse Scots of having an inordinent level of funding. London's Evening Standard Newspaper has labelled the Scots `subsidy junkies' on innumerable occasions.

For nearly 300 years Scots have endured a barrage of such rhetoric which has sapped our innate Vitality and optimism. However I am asking the question 'Is it True?' Do the English Taxpayers really subsidize the Scots?

Those of us old enough to remember Josef Goebbels, (Hitler's infamous propaganda chief), know the quote he made:'If you tell a big enough Lie, and keep on repeating it, in the end people will come to believe it.' The big lie of Nazism is still believed today by deluded people, still taken in by his lies. It would appear that no serious research into this Subsidy Claim has been done in the past, due in no minor part to the excessive cloud of Secrecy coming from the Civil Service Establishment. The Information was there, but had to be ferreted out of the Stationery Office and Office of National Statistics. Before much of the Government paperwork was put on the Internet, this would have taken a researcher at least a year to extract the figures.

Thanks to the Internet, and the digging done by Colin, Eric, Frank, Neil, Niniane, Peter and Ozzie, whose labours helped to provide many pieces of the Jigsaw, this task has become easier and I personally spent over 400 hours in research to finally put this huge jigsaw puzzle together. Accurate information up to and including the 5th April 1999 (The cut off date selected for this research) was used and only the Governments own figures are used to preserve accuracy. North Sea Oil revenues were difficult to track down as the UK Government regard these as special resources of the UK (Extra-Regio Territories) and not Scottish, even though the Oilfields are in Scottish waters, are policed by Scottish Policemen and supported by an Infrastructure, at Scottish Ratepayers and Council Tax payers expense. Without financial support from Westminster. Following this convention, North Sea Revenues are EXCLUDED from the allocation of revenues to Scotland. When the Scottish Parliament was established, the UK Government annexed 3000 square miles of Scottish Waters rich in Oil, Gas and Fish and transferred them to English jurisdiction. In these cases, I have charged the Tax revenues to the Scottish Tax account as I have also charged the Corporation taxes paid by the Oil Companies based in London for their Scottish operations.

I am not satisfied that I have the true picture of North Sea Oil and Gas revenues as I feel some of these have been allocated to the Gross operating surplus and Crown Estates Income. In this event, they may well be understated for the Scottish Tax revenues, but I have found it impossible at present to penetrate the wall of secrecy that surrounds this heading. (Perhaps a SNP MP might ask a Question in Westminster?) The U.K. Government use the figure of 8.6% to express the percentage of Scottish Populace to the whole U.K. Population and I have used this percentage in Annex A where it was impossible to ascertain the correct percentage per Annex A. (Tables of Taxation Revenue and Percentages). It should be Noted that the least ambiguous sites were those of the Customs and Excise, followed by the Inland Revenue. The worst site being the Treasury.

GENERAL NOTES and OBSERVATIONS
It was interesting to note the disparity between Income tax receipts in Scotland and those of the S.E. of England. Scotland's Share of the Income tax and National Insurance Contributions is 7.4% which reflects the lower Incomes of Scots in general. Inland revenue figures strongly suggest that there are a higher proportion of Scots, whose earnings fall below the minimum Tax level and therefore pay no tax at all, than in the rest of the U.K. A pointer to the relative levels of poverty in Scotland.


Another anomaly is the number of people of pension age who continue to work, this would naturally be expected of Hill Farmers and Crofters whose incomes are desperately low, but it extends right across the board. In the U.K. the average number of Pensioners working is 6.6% of all pensioners. However in Scotland the ratio is 9.4%!.

Also Included in the figures are Council Tax and Business rates, as quite properly these are taxes to be taken into account. Council Tax at 9.3% is much higher than the population percentage of 8.6%. Business rates are even higher at 16.1%. In Fraserburgh one high Street shop has a rates bill of a similar sized shop in Regents Street in London! One would expect Rural areas to have higher charges than Urban areas, but this does not account for the difference, which may occur to the high costs of providing the infrastructure for the Oil Industry on the East and North East coasts, but is more likely in the Central belt, to be the result of Labour Councils Bad Management, inefficiencies and profligacy.

TAXATION TOUR
Before we reach the concluding part, it would be a good idea to acquaint oneself with the various taxes and so would you please turn to APPENDIX A at the back and I will take you on a quick tour.

We start first of all with our old friends from Customs and Excise and the most easily recognized Tax of all: Value Added Tax. Scotland's share being £4.957 Billion or 8.9% of the Total. One would expect it to be lower than this due to the lower levels of personal spending, or at the very most be 8.6% in line with the Population, but is in fact a distortion due to the fact that VAT is charged on Bottled Whisky and Fuels as soon as they leave the Distilleries or Refineries. And Scotland has a higher production ratio in these commodities.

Hydrocarbon Oils at £2.478 Billions or 19.9% is more properly not a Tax but an Excise duty. Excise Duty is payable when the Fuels leave the Refinery and the high percentage reflects the dominant position of the Grangemouth Refinery in the UK.

Tobacco Duty at £0.672 Billion or 8.1% is a little less than the national average, but reflects the reduced level of imports and manufactures in Scotland.

Alcohol including Whisky. This duty is quite high at £2.515 Billions or 39.3% This reflects the high output of Whisky distilling in Scotland.

Betting and Gaming, Air Passenger Duty, Insurance premium Tax, Landfill Tax and other Excise Duties are lumped together. It has proved impossible to apportion them by actual revenue raised in Scotland, so the Population percentage of 8.6% has been applied.

Our old nemesis Hector the Inspector holds out the Inland Revenue collection plate and takes £6.712 Billions from our hip pockets or 7.4% of all UK Income Taxes. As mentioned earlier, this is an indicator of the relative Wealth of Scotland compared to the UK as a whole. If we take the Treasury Population figure of 8.6% as being accurate, then this would indicate that wages and Salaries are some 16% lower in Scotland than they are in England.

Non North Sea Corporation Taxes follow on at £2,739 Billion pounds or 9.1% of the UK Total. This is higher due to the relative profitability of Scottish Companies and firms and is especially true of Banking, Finance and Insurance.

North Sea Companies Corporation Taxes are next at £3.301 Billions or 97.1% of the oil and Gas Sectors. The Corporation tax figures are those taken from Companies House Annual returns for Companies with registered interests in the Scottish Oilfields.

Petroleum Revenue Tax at £0.777 Billion also represents 97.1% as being the Scottish Sector. Due to the Secrecy and arcane treasury accounting policies, I was unable to find out what this item in the accounts stands for. It is possible that this is a surcharge made when prices go over a certain fixed limit.

North Sea Revenues at £2.525 Billions is also reckoned to be 97.1% Scottish Sector. Again it has proved virtually impossible to find the source of this heading.

Capital Gains Taxes, Inheritance Taxes and Stamp Duties are all lumped together at around 8.4% actual which is slightly below the average, reflecting lower house prices in Scotland and that Scots have fewer opportunities for amassing wealth.

Now we come to the other Taxes and Government receipts which will complete this tour, taxes such as Vehicle Excise Duty of £0.445 Billion Pounds reflects the Duty paid on a New Car and Road Fund Duty.This Duty is probably the main reason why Cars cost more to buy in Britain than anywhere else.

Oilfield Royalties of £0.388 Billion pounds or 97.1% which reflects the cost of annual royalties on existing Oilfields still being worked in the Scottish Sector.

Business Rates of £2.257 Billion Pounds or 16.1% are a regressive tax on profitable businesses. They are abnormally high in Scotland, because the local Authorities have never implemented the Standard Business Rate Laws brought in by the Last Conservative government. Too many Labour Councils regard the Business rates as a milk cow to be exploited ruthlessly to make good their shortcomings, and this has led to far too many companies shutting up shop and moving south or onto the Continent where Rates or Land taxes are much cheaper. Scotland has the unenviable reputation of having the highest Business rates in the western world.

Social Security Contributions of £4.159 Billion pounds or 7.4% tells the same sorry story of the disparity in earning power of Scots and English.

Council Taxes of £1.190 Billion pounds or 9.3% reflect the higher costs of Council services in Scotland and also the Water charges which are almost double the English norm.

Other Taxes and Royalties and Interest & Dividends of £1.Billion Pounds or 8.6% have been allocated pro rata to the Scottish population average.

Finally Gross operating Surplus and Crown estate rents and Income of £1.582 Billion or 8.6%. The population ratio was applied even though I suspect there is an Element of North Sea Oil contained in this figure. Treasury Secrecy foiled me and I have had to leave it as is.

This brings us to the totals and at this point the figures have a story to tell. The Total UK Taxation Revenues for the year to the 5th April 1999 were £356,800.000 Million pounds (356.8 Billions) let us assume that figure is 100% of the total Taxation. Scotland with 8.6% of the population contributed £41,346,600 Million Pounds (41.346 Billions) or 11.6% of the total UK Tax revenues. In return, under the Barnet Formula, Scotland received £12.2 Billion Pounds or 3.4%!

Far from England subsidizing Scotland, the reverse is true. Scots are subsidizing the South East of England, and in particular London Which received £89.7 Billion pounds of Government expenditure or 25% and this does not include health, Education or Defence. No wonder the Treasury wishes to keep it quiet! This has been going on for years.

In Conclusion. There is no reason at all why Scotland could not go it alone as an independent nation just as Norway has done. We can give our citizens a higher quality of life whilst investing part of the Oil revenues into an Oil Fund for future generations to come. Our pensioners can have pensions on which they can live in Dignity without poverty. Schools that can invest in new buildings and teachers. A Health Service, free to all which does not ration healthcare by postcode or age. Housing Associations that can build the type of houses people want to live in, not Labours Stalinist monobloc concrete deserts. Crofters and hill farmers can receive aid which stops the depopulation of our rural areas. Fishermen can rely on properly funded Fish conservation measures which will preserve stocks for their sons to fish in the future, protected by a small but efficient Navy, Army and Air Force. Businessmen can look forward to a vibrant economy with lower rates and small taxes and in turn can increase the wealth of the nation as Adam Smith envisaged. Ladies and Gentlemen of Scotland, the Future lies in your hands. The BIG LIE is revealed, do YOU still believe it?

APPENDIX A
UK Treasury Taxation Figures 1999
UK Whole Percent Scotland Percent
Description of Taxes £ Millions % £ Millions %
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Value Added Taxation £ 55,700,000 100 £ 4,957,300 8.9%
Hydrocarbon Oils £ 22,500,000 100 £ 4,477,500 19.9%
Tobacco £ 8,300,000 100 £ 672,300 8.1%
Alcohol Inc Whisky £ 6,400,000 100 £ 2,515,200 39.3%
Betting & Gaming £ 1,500,000 100 £ 129,000 8.6%
Air Passenger Duty £ 900,000 100 £ 77,400 8.6%
Insurance Premium Tax £ 1,400,000 100 £ 120,400 8.6%
Landfill Tax £ 400,000 100 £ 34,400 8.6%
Other Excise duties £ 2,100,000 100 £ 180,600 8.6%
TOTAL Customs/Excise £ 99,200,000 100 £13,164,100 13.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Taxes Net of
Tax Credits £ 90,700,000 100 £ 6,711,800 7.4%
Corporation Taxes
Non-North Sea £ 30,100,000 100 £ 2,739,100 9.1%
Corporation Taxes
North Sea Scotland £ 3,400,000 100 £ 3,301,400 97.1%
Petroleum Revenue Tax £ 800,000 100 £ 776,800 97.1%
North Sea revenues £ 2,600,000 100 £ 2,524,600 97.1%
Capital Gains tax £ 2,400,000 100 £ 199,200 8.3%
Inheritance Taxes £ 2,000,000 100 £ 168,000 8.4%
Stamp Duties £ 6,100,000 100 £ 512,400 8.4%
TOTAL Inland Revenue £138,100,000 100 £16,933,300 12.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Excise Duties £ 4,900,000 100 £ 445,900 9.1%
OilField Royalties £ 400,000 100 £ 388,400 97.1%
Business Rates £ 15,700,000 100 £ 2,527,700 16.1%
Social Security £ 56,200,000 100 £ 4,158,800 7.4%
Council Taxes £ 12,800,000 100 £ 1,190,400 9.3%
Other Taxes/Royalties £ 7,500,000 100 £ 645,000 8.6%
Interest and Dividends £ 3,600,000 100 £ 309,600 8.6%
Gross Operating Surplus
and Crown Estate Rents £ 18,400,000 100 £ 1,582,400 8.6%
TOTAL Other Taxation £119,500,000 100 £11,248,200 9.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTALS £356,800,000 £41,345,600 11.6%

SCOTLAND RECEIVES FROM TREASURY £12,200,000 3.4%
Treasury Estimate of Scottish Population is that of 8.6% of UK Total.

APPENDIX B
List of Sources used in researching the 'Big Lie'

Scottish Parliament / Publications / Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1998-1999 Section 7 : Revenue.

HM Customs and Excise

Pre Budget report November 1999 annex B

CSR White paper Chapter 22.

Crown Estates Financial Highlights 1999-2000

Inland Revenue

[Oresai]

Celtic nationalists are always good for a laugh.


Good grief....
For a member of a pro-European preservation forum, your views are themselves, at times, laughable. Until I read that, I forbore from saying so though.
I have no objection to anyone having contradictory views on the subject, but how about some basic manners please? Belittling those you don`t share views with is childish, to say the least, and does any member of this forum no credit.
We can always agree to disagree, yes? ;)

[Loyalist]

Good grief....
For a member of a pro-European preservation forum, your views are themselves, at times, laughable. Until I read that, I forbore from saying so though.

Dragging up a month-old topic? :rolleyes:

The SNP is a socialist party which, like Sinn Fein, favours non-white immigration to Scotland and the establishment of a pseudo-Marxist welfare state. For a member of a European preservationist forum, that is laughable.


I have no objection to anyone having contradictory views on the subject, but how about some basic manners please? Belittling those you don`t share views with is childish, to say the least, and does any member of this forum no credit.

If any "belittling" was done, Oisín was also a participant, so refrain from simply targeting me with this drivel.

[Oresai]

You, obviously, do not have to agree or even like anyone else`s opinions, politics, whatsoever. But you DO have to have some basic manners when addressing others. We all do, or don`t discussions degenerate into a free for all that demeans what we are here for?
That was my point. :)
I`ll ignore your blatant arrogance due to naivete of the workings of a country you do not inhabit, and agree to disagree with you.
Enjoy the discussion. :)

[Loyalist]

I`ll ignore your blatant arrogance due to naivete of the workings of a country you do not inhabit, and agree to disagree with you.
Enjoy the discussion. :)

Just to clarify, I'm assuming you mean the UK, a country in which I have spent years? It's the only "country" in this discussion.

[Oresai]

The United Kingdom is NOT `a` country. It is a group of separate countries, one of which is Scotland. Do you live there?

[Loyalist]

The United Kingdom is NOT `a` country. It is a group of separate countries, one of which is Scotland. Do you live there?

The United Kingdom is a sovereign nation, of which Scotland is a province. Does Scotland have a seat at the United Nations? A place in NATO? Any international recognition as an independent country? No, but the United Kingdom does. :coffee:

I have lived in both England and Scotland, attended school there, and still have a good deal of family residing in both. Seeing as how you're an Orcadian, it leaves me to wonder which one of us has actually spent more time on the mainland.

[Oresai]

Sorry, Scots born and bred here. ;)
I give up now. Your arguments are unreasonable and biased and I haven`t the time to waste on them, sorry. :)

PS...It does take more to make a `country` than the points you raise. ;)

[Thorum]

Rugby legend Gareth Edwards, who won 53 caps for Wales and ten for the British Lions, said last night: ‘I’m very proud to be Welsh and if anybody asks me where I’m from, I’ll say Wales. But I’m also British – I’ve played for the British Lions and I’m very proud of that too.’

These are my sentiments, I'm Welsh and British, why should we bend to the PC brigade once again?

Makes me really mad I say!:mad:

I agree, Sveyn. Chalk up another victory for the PC brigade!!

Pisses me off and I am not even British!! :shakefist

[Arrow Cross]

Dragging up a month-old topic? :rolleyes:

The SNP is a socialist party which, like Sinn Fein, favours non-white immigration to Scotland and the establishment of a pseudo-Marxist welfare state. For a member of a European preservationist forum, that is laughable.
l0WHYG7ikLs

[Oisín]

l0WHYG7ikLs
Thankfully there are no Sinn Féin supporters on this forum that I know of.

[Arrow Cross]

Thankfully there are no Sinn Féin supporters on this forum that I know of.
I know. But it's still pretty absurd of a watch. Such things are unheard of in the East. Then again, we have our own absurdities.

[Oisín]

I know. But it's still pretty absurd of a watch. Such things are unheard of in the East. Then again, we have our own absurdities.
The thing people need to remember is that Sinn Féin are a completely insignificant political party outside the 6 counties. It's not Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin that are in government importing immigrants to Ireland, it's Fianna Fail and the Green Party, yet for some reason Sinn Féin are always singled out. The Unionist parties have the exact same policies re. welcoming immigrants as Sinn Féin do.