PDA

View Full Version : Should the regions of the United Kingdom be granted Independence?



Óttar
08-25-2009, 01:32 AM
Would you support the countries of the United Kingdom being granted independence and all this entails? Why or why not?

Beorn
08-25-2009, 01:34 AM
What do you mean by "regions"? As in the countries?

Óttar
08-25-2009, 01:35 AM
What do you mean by "regions"? As in the countries?
Yes.

Lahtari
08-25-2009, 03:13 AM
While this isn't actually any of my or any other foreigners business, I'm voting yes since I don't find unions of peoples with separate national identities to be a good idea at all. I can think of several cases where such multiethnic states have caused balkanization and bitter fighting over land and power. Not to say that the UK would necessarily lead to anything like that (except in Northern Ireland where it has already happened), but on the other hand, countries gaining independence by peaceful means has never caused any ethnic tensions but rather had a stabilizing effect.

It's just like we use to "hate" each others (or at least the Swedes :p) in the Nordic countries. That's a big joke. We have some funny stereotypies about each others, and I guess everyone just has to hate their neighbor, even if just a little bit, but in reality the region has probably the least of ethnic tensions in Europe (when not counting immigrants). I can just imagine the amount of hatred if the Kalmar Union or something similar was still in place. :eek:

The problem here is that if those countries are staying in the EU and accepting the Lisbon treaty after independence, it can decrease the influence of the region overall like pointed out. And independence under the Lisbon treaty is pointless anyway, when the barely democratic EU government will have the power over even the smallest details of national law.

Óttar
08-25-2009, 07:33 PM
Really!? You guys have no opinion? I'd have to think for a while to formulate mine.

Part of me would support it as it would be a move toward the idea of a "Europe of 100 flags", which I find to be intriguing with its own set of implications. This would be a move toward decentralization, and a nod toward local governments, different economic policies and less tyrannical power structures. On the other hand, it would make migration difficult (I know you all are nodding your head in approval), but I like the freedom of being able to live and work in any EU country with an EU passport for my own personal enrichment. Also we must consider if the UK splits than how does that effect their relationship with other European countries, who could take advantage of the division of the once united British powerhouse? Not to mention, those third-world countries which were once under British administration could surpass their divided conquerors. What implications would this have for the British Commonwealth of Nations?

I know one thing that's for sure, the six counties of Northern Ireland could never hold their own against the united force of Irish republicans without support from Westminster in the form of spies, funds, troops, MI-5 and all sorts of cutting edge, newfangled technology. The Orangemen might actually have to stand on their own two feet for a change.

Comte Arnau
08-25-2009, 07:34 PM
Yes. And other stateless nations in Europe too, as long as the majority of their people wanted so.

Loki
08-25-2009, 07:46 PM
Scotland - yes. It will be beneficial for England, but most likely not in the interest of the Scots. Wales are England are more inseparable, it would seem. Maybe Arawn can offer an opinion there. Northern Ireland? Without the United Kingdom it would probably not be a viable country on its own -- unless of course incorporated into Eire.

Poltergeist
08-25-2009, 08:07 PM
Yes. And other stateless nations in Europe too, as long as the majority of their people wanted so.

Do the majority of Catalans want it?

007
08-25-2009, 08:19 PM
United we stand! :thumbs up

Funny how so many on-line nationalists want the Union to breakup but salivate over forcing NI to join Ireland just because they are on the same island.

Comte Arnau
08-25-2009, 08:25 PM
Do the majority of Catalans want it?

The 'democratic' Spanish Constitution doesn't allow the Catalans to even make a referendum about it, as they could do in Quebec.

Poltergeist
08-25-2009, 08:28 PM
The 'democratic' Spanish Constitution doesn't allow the Catalans to even make a referendum about it, as they could do in Quebec.

i know. But are there indications that, provided the constitution changed tomorrow, the majority of Catalans would vote for separation from Spain?

Comte Arnau
08-25-2009, 08:32 PM
i know. But are there indications that, provided the constitution changed tomorrow, the majority of Catalans would vote for separation from Spain?

There have been a few surveys, and it's hard to say because of the undecided people. It could range from a mere 32% to almost 60%, so who knows.

Ariets
08-25-2009, 10:37 PM
Sure, why not.

Beorn
08-26-2009, 01:41 AM
I like the freedom of being able to live and work in any EU country with an EU passport for my own personal enrichment.

I don't. I'm sick and bloody tired of foreigners taking jobs which should have gone to Englishmen.
If I'm drunk enough and really shooting from the hip, I'd say the high proportion of "other" UK nationals in my country would be gone or certainly adhered to a strictly higher tax band and local licensing.

EDIT: As for the original threads question: 'Should the countries of the UK be granted independence?'

YES! :thumb001:

England would be wealthier, healthier and free to rule amongst herself as and how she pleases, free of any taint of foreigners.
Children in schools would be taught the truth about their history and not some hodge-podge collection of nonsense to do with some political union which the Scots created back in 1707. Our restructuring of the legal system to clearly define and set out the core English values once upheld as the word of God himself. The restructuring of our foreign policies and the certain removal of 'our boys' from warzones which simply do not benefit us in the long term of short term.

The list is endless. England would certainly be the better off of all the three (four if you include NI).

Wales would seek to align itself with the EU or strike out and propose some sort of Celtic union in order to survive, or Wales may simply request to co-exist in some loose form of federal union with England. I would like that as Wales and England have a lot in common with each other and have often stood side-by-side in forays abroad. (Agincourt, anyone? :thumb001:)

Cornwall is a toughy. She would certainly be granted her own choice in defining her future.

Scotland can go drain the North Sea fields it has left after the renegotiation of the international treaties, but it should be heavily cautioned that England has much to claim by way of international rights to these supposed "Scottish Oil Fields". An agreeable solution would be a priority upon the death of the UK.

And on really. I'm too tired to carry on and think, but the lie which is concocted by the pro-Unionists and general money grabbing internationalists is repeated and repeated till people simply accept what they are told.

Psychonaut
08-26-2009, 01:54 AM
Should the regions of the UK be granted independence?

Absolutely not. Independence is something that one declares and fights for, not something to be granted by a kindly sovereign.

Æmeric
08-26-2009, 01:57 AM
Absolutely not. Independence is something that one declares and fights for, not something to be granted by a kindly sovereign.

Really? It is also a way to get rid of a nuisance population & a territory that is a financial bottomless pit. For example, lets grant Puerto Rico independence. Whether they want it or not.:thumbs up

Psychonaut
08-26-2009, 02:00 AM
Really? It is also a way to get rid of a nuisance population & a territory that is a financial bottomless pit. For example, lets grant Puerto Rico independence. Whether they want it or not.:thumbs up

Dangit Æmeric, why'd you have to make a good point?! I was hoping to annoy Wat with my rhetoric and bring up painful memories of the American Revolution. :tsk:

Beorn
08-26-2009, 02:02 AM
http://www.vikdavid.com/blog/pics/nelson-haha.gif

The Lawspeaker
08-26-2009, 02:11 AM
Do I think that England should get it's own parliament and that the Houses of Lords and Commons should be like a Federal Government and that the Kingdoms, Northern Ireland,Wales and Cornwall (and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) should create their own systems according to their own specified wishes and tradition ?. Then I say yes. I think that the all the countries should focus on their own regions instead of the big picture. Whitehall should only deal with let's say foreign affairs, the treasury and defense. The rest should be left to England, Scotland etc.

But do I believe that the Britons should get rid of the United Kingdom ? My answer is most definitely no.

There is enough division as it is and we don't need more small countries in Europe. )

A flag to show a more decentralized Britain should look something like this- and with the crests of Wales and Cornwall added.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Flag_of_the_Commonwealth_%281658-1660%29.svg/200px-Flag_of_the_Commonwealth_%281658-1660%29.svg.png
Ireland (Protectorate Jack 1658-1660)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Union_Flag_of_UK_with_Wales.png/180px-Union_Flag_of_UK_with_Wales.png
Wales (actual proposal)



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Flag_of_Cornwall.svg/180px-Flag_of_Cornwall.svg.png
Cornish flag (they don't seem to have a crest ?) :confused:

Barreldriver
08-26-2009, 02:13 AM
I voted yes, but only if I'm allowed to come and visit England. :D

Beorn
08-26-2009, 02:20 AM
I voted yes, but only if I'm allowed to come and visit England. :D

You can visit and be very welcome to stay. Hows your cleaning skills? :):p

Barreldriver
08-26-2009, 02:21 AM
You can visit and be very welcome to stay. Hows your cleaning skills? :):p

I can clean good when I put effort into it. :P I get cluttered when busy but can get it spick and span in no time.

Lahtari
08-26-2009, 02:29 AM
There is enough division as it is and we don't need more small countries in Europe.

Something wrong with small countries? Would you like to be incorporated back into the great German folk-body? ;)


Really? It is also a way to get rid of a nuisance population & a territory that is a financial bottomless pit. For example, lets grant Puerto Rico independence. Whether they want it or not.:thumbs up

And think about the poor Gipsies in Europe, they have been oppressed long enough. If the Jews can have their own nation state, why not them as well? :cry2

(Needless to say, such a state would instantly declare war to it's neighbors and surrender without terms after a glorious fight of 5 minutes.. :icon_lol:)

The Lawspeaker
08-26-2009, 02:33 AM
Something wrong with small countries? Would you like to be incorporated back into the great German folk-body? :)



And think about the poor Gipsies in Europe, they have been oppressed long enough. If the Jews can have their own nation state, why not them as well? :cry2

(Needless to say, such a state would instantly declare war to it's neighbors and surrender without terms after a glorious fight of 5 minutes.. :icon_lol:)
:thumb001: Ooh yes.. I really feel for the gypsies. Let them have their own country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) .



;)


Something wrong with small countries? Would you like to be incorporated back into the great German folk-body? ;)
No thank you. We have been independent (recognized as such) since 1648.
But the last thing we need is another Balkan right next to us ^^

Beorn
08-26-2009, 02:44 AM
...this German House that is now on the throne should be relieved of it's duties

That should be Scottish-German house :wink The Queen Mum traced a direct line back to Robert the Bruce.


and the Britons should look for a new house- one that is British rather then the ruling House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (they only changed their name in 1917).

It could be argued that we should look to reinstate the closest living relative to the last king of England. Plenty of those Godwinsons out there.

Gooding
08-26-2009, 03:08 AM
As I'm neither a resident of the United Kingdom nor a citizen, I judged myself not qualified to offer an opinion, but I do have questions. How would the average English,Scottish, Manx, Channel Islander,Cornish, Orcadian, Shetlander or Northern Irish person feel about such a devolution? Would they want independence, per se, or would they want to be absorbed into a larger entity( should Norway retake the Shetland Islands and Orkney, for example)? However unwanted the ethnic minorities in Great Britain might be, would they not demand some sort of accomodation?What of ethnically related folk such as the Bretons?Would not Wales and Cornwall wish for Brittany to join them as kinsmen and would not the government in Paris wish to retake the Channel Islands and add that land to the area of Normandy? If Frisia and the Netherlands have a near kinship to the English due to the language similarities, why shouldn't England be governed from Amsterdam or the Netherlands governed from London?If a devolution were indeed to occur, what are the chances that the European Union would want to assert direct control over these areas? Those of you who actually live over there could certainly provide answers to these questions, yet my own ignorance of the situation blocks any semblance or pretence to my qualification to answer that question.

Brännvin
08-26-2009, 03:54 AM
I voted, I have no opinion/not qualified to answer, indeed, it is not the my business, I think that only the native Britons ( welsh, english, cornish etc) living the local reality are the only ones who can opine and decide it.

Óttar
08-26-2009, 06:53 AM
I should've listed "other" or "not sure." Oh well.

Treffie
08-26-2009, 08:39 AM
Scotland - yes. It will be beneficial for England, but most likely not in the interest of the Scots. Wales are England are more inseparable, it would seem. Maybe Arawn can offer an opinion there. Northern Ireland? Without the United Kingdom it would probably not be a viable country on its own -- unless of course incorporated into Eire.

In Wales people are apathetic towards gaining independence. Back when we had a referendum for a devolved Govt, only 1/3rd of the electorate turned out (if I can remember) and the difference between for and against was something like 1%. So far, the Assembly has been good in some areas, poor in others - we've managed to drop presciption charges for everyone and helped those whose jobs maybe at risk. On the other hand, the amount spent in the education sector has been badly affected - the amount spent on kids in schools is approximately £500 less per year than those in England. However, exam results in English medium Welsh schools are still almost the same as English schools, but results in Welsh medium schools remain about 20% higher.

Loki
08-26-2009, 08:47 AM
I voted yes, but only if I'm allowed to come and visit England. :D

Just leave your camera at home. ;)

Equinox
08-26-2009, 12:13 PM
I met a woman from Devon who said she was proud to be English. We conversed for a while and I soon established that she was, in fact, a mere 1/4 English - her father being Scottish and her mother 1/2 Irish, 1/2 English. Yet here was this woman claiming to be both English and proud.

Suppose then, that her father had a similar attitude. By being "Scottish" he was actually only 1/4 Scottish, 1/4 Manx and 1/2 Irish.

How can one advocate devolution of the Union when their own existence is a product of it? It is my understanding that this phenomenon is prevalent throughout the British Isles and not necessarily thought to be odd.

Imagine if Éamon De Valera was not half Spanish, but rather half English?

Hesperión
08-26-2009, 01:22 PM
Really!? You guys have no opinion? I'd have to think for a while to formulate mine.

Part of me would support it as it would be a move toward the idea of a "Europe of 100 flags", which I find to be intriguing with its own set of implications. This would be a move toward decentralization, and a nod toward local governments, different economic policies and less tyrannical power structures. On the other hand, it would make migration difficult (I know you all are nodding your head in approval), but I like the freedom of being able to live and work in any EU country with an EU passport for my own personal enrichment. Also we must consider if the UK splits than how does that effect their relationship with other European countries, who could take advantage of the division of the once united British powerhouse? Not to mention, those third-world countries which were once under British administration could surpass their divided conquerors. What implications would this have for the British Commonwealth of Nations?

I know one thing that's for sure, the six counties of Northern Ireland could never hold their own against the united force of Irish republicans without support from Westminster in the form of spies, funds, troops, MI-5 and all sorts of cutting edge, newfangled technology. The Orangemen might actually have to stand on their own two feet for a change.

Absolutely not. Independence is something that one declares and fights for, not something to be granted by a kindly sovereign.

I voted yes, but only if I'm allowed to come and visit England.
Aren't you Americans? *shrug*

As if a Disneyland in the heart of Europe wasn't bad enough! :(

As I'm neither a resident of the United Kingdom nor a citizen, I judged myself not qualified to offer an opinion, but I do have questions.An oddity! One American with common sense! Would you believe it?


What of ethnically related folk such as the Bretons?Would not Wales and Cornwall wish for Brittany to join them as kinsmen and would not the government in Paris wish to retake the Channel Islands and add that land to the area of Normandy? If Frisia and the Netherlands have a near kinship to the English due to the language similarities, why shouldn't England be governed from Amsterdam or the Netherlands governed from London?Too odd to be true.

Someone ought to make sure that they understand the difference between fiction and reality. :wink

Beorn
08-26-2009, 01:23 PM
How would the average English,Scottish, Manx, Channel Islander,Cornish, Orcadian, Shetlander or Northern Irish person feel about such a devolution?

That depends upon who you speak to. You ask this Englishman and he'll tell you independence is the way, whilst if you spoke to another Englishman they would advocate staying in the Union. (Which one is the actual nationalist I'll let you decide;))


should Norway retake the Shetland Islands and Orkney, for example?That depends again upon who you talk to. I knew two brothers from there who were very proud Scotsmen, but certainly rejoiced in their Viking heritage. What does not often get considered is the independence of the Shetlands and Orkneys from both the UK and the new independent Scotland would actually favour them as they would have the clear rights to the majority of the oil fields. There is certainly an incentive to the islanders if they wished to pursue it.


However unwanted the ethnic minorities in Great Britain might be, would they not demand some sort of accomodation?They'll get what they're given and like it or leave.


would not the government in Paris wish to retake the Channel Islands and add that land to the area of Normandy?They'd have a hard time about attaining that. The Islanders of Jersey and Guernsey (Jersey more so) are ardently proud to be apart of England. That doesn't even factor in the large Scottish, Irish, English and locals - who regularly speak their local patois - that would all hate to see the islands lose their independence (because they are truly independent) and become swallowed up into the French government.


If Frisia and the Netherlands have a near kinship to the English due to the language similarities, why shouldn't England be governed from Amsterdam or the Netherlands governed from London?Because that would be silly and go against thousands of years of identity and history.


If a devolution were indeed to occur, what are the chances that the European Union would want to assert direct control over these areas? About as great as the chances are for mass riots on the streets. These people have just gained independence not for it to be taken away without choice by some pseudo-European union.


How can one advocate devolution of the Union when their own existence is a product of it?

Are you suggesting that the Union opened the doors to international mixing?


Imagine if Éamon De Valera was not half Spanish, but rather half English?It wouldn't have mattered. There have been many individuals in history with dual nationality who have taken arms against one half in aid of the other.

Equinox
08-26-2009, 02:17 PM
Are you suggesting that the Union opened the doors to international mixing?

No, rather that the internal mixing within the Union solidified it's position beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is my opinion that were there not a union, it would be necessary to create one. Britain has always been considered an island fortress of sorts and the stability that has come from that is quite evident (colonial empire, wars in faraway lands etc).

From my own first-hand experience it has become apparent to be that racial identities in the British Isles do not correspond to cultural affinities in many instances.

What are we to call these people, with recent ancestry from Wales, Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland and England? What ought we call them? The answer is simple and yet inescapable - these people are British.

This may be an instance whereby the concept of nationalism comes into conflict with the direction of this forum. By seeking to establish essentially synthetic political boundaries across the UK, one runs the risk - and it is a great one - of effectively erasing an established ethnicity.


It wouldn't have mattered. There have been many individuals in history with dual nationality who have taken arms against one half in aid of the other.

This begs the question - provided that there was a devolution of the Union - would you let personal circumstances become paramount to your beloved ideal? It is my understanding that such a drastic change ought to pose a moral dilemma of sorts for both you and your family.

Beorn
08-26-2009, 02:30 PM
It is my opinion that were there not a union, it would be necessary to create one.

Why? Just to satisfy some ethnic confusion on the part of others?


Britain has always been considered an island fortress of sorts Has it? Diplomatic records dating hundreds of years alone would contradict that statement. As for the people of the British Isles, it was only after the creation of the Union that the inflated belief in being of one became the dogma. It certainly doesn't reflect in the writings of the ancestors that there was some British identity (other than the British=Welsh).


and the stability that has come from that is quite evident (colonial empire, wars in faraway lands etc).The countries were stable before the union. England alone was considered one of the richest nations of Europe.


What are we to call these people, with recent ancestry from Wales, Cornwell, Ireland, Scotland and England? What ought we call them? The answer is simple and yet inescapable - these people are British.You call them what they wish to be called. A person from England with sizeable English heritage is English. a person from Scotland with sizeable Scottish heritage is Scottish, and so on.


By seeking to establish essentially synthetic political boundaries across the UK, one runs the risk - and it is a great one - Synthetic? What the bleeding hell are you going on about? The only synthetic political boudary ever created on this great big island was the Union of 1707 and continues to be so.


of effectively erasing an established ethnicity.What? There is an ethnicity called British?


This begs the question - provided that there was a devolution of the Union - would you let personal circumstances become paramount to your beloved ideal? It is my understanding that such a drastic change ought to pose a moral dilemma of sorts for both you and your family.What circumstances and how so?

Allenson
08-26-2009, 02:48 PM
I'm certainly not qualified to answer. However, if the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or Cornwall want independence, I would wish them well and perhaps come visit some day. And, I'd bring my camera. ;)

I would give Scotland the best chance at survival on her own (England aside, meaning). The other locales just seem too small to function in a completely soverign manner. And yes, I have a hunch that England would be quite a bit better off for it....



An oddity! One American with common sense! Would you believe it?

:rolleyes:

Stick around, you might get to know us a little better. :thumbs up

Gooding
08-26-2009, 02:55 PM
Thank you, Wat and Oakie, for taking the time to answer my questions.While I remain unqualified to offer an opinion, I do understand the situation a bit better and I thank you for your explanations.:thumb001: Yeah, I don't know where I got that English/Frisian connection..a misremembered bit of trivia on my part, doubtlessly.Well, good luck to the people of your country, in whatever decision they choose to make on this matter.:)

Treffie
08-26-2009, 02:57 PM
I would give Scotland the best chance at survival on her own (England aside, meaning). The other locales just seem too small to function in a completely soverign manner. And yes, I have a hunch that England would be quite a bit better off for it....

I don't think that anything is too small these days, Allenson - especially as the EU still provides assistance to those states that need it. Wales gets more assistance from the EU than other areas of the UK as it is, I doubt that this would change if it were to decide to become independent.

Beorn
08-26-2009, 03:00 PM
Wales gets more assistance from the EU than other areas of the UK as it is

I thought Cornwall had that honour?

Allenson
08-26-2009, 03:03 PM
I don't think that anything is too small these days, Allenson - especially as the EU still provides assistance to those states that need it. Wales gets more assistance from the EU than other areas of the UK as it is, I doubt that this would change if it were to decide to become independent.

Further illustrating my lack of qualification for answering the question. :embarrassed

So yeah, I reckon that Andora, Liechtenstein and others have made a go of it for years, so why couldn't others? Liechtenstein isn't even in the EU, I believe...

Treffie
08-26-2009, 03:07 PM
I thought Cornwall had that honour?

Per head of population, perhaps it is Cornwall, but for sheer amount, the honour goes to Wales.

Cato
08-26-2009, 07:50 PM
Not being a native of the UK, I don't think I'm qualified to answer.

Óttar
08-26-2009, 08:01 PM
Funny how on-line nationalists all want the Union to breakup but salivate over forcing NI to join Ireland just because they are on the same island.
More like on-line nationalists treat Irish Catholics as if they were n***ers, all the while bragging about how they are part Irish or banging an Irishwoman in a bid for street cred.

Beorn
08-26-2009, 08:21 PM
...or banging an Irishwoman in a bid for street cred.


http://oliolioli.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/father_ted_001_003_002_0011.jpg

Murphy
08-26-2009, 08:41 PM
I'm amused that the people who support the UK think that it's in the interests of their resptive nations in the face of a "greater threat". I'm sorry, but the City of London isn't out for your interests, they're out for their own. I fully support independent parliaments.

Regards,
Eóin.

Equinox
08-26-2009, 08:54 PM
Why? Just to satisfy some ethnic confusion on the part of others?

The issue may be closer to home than you would like to admit (clarification later).


Has it? Diplomatic records dating hundreds of years alone would contradict that statement. As for the people of the British Isles, it was only after the creation of the Union that the inflated belief in being of one became the dogma. It certainly doesn't reflect in the writings of the ancestors that there was some British identity (other than the British=Welsh).

Then it is by your own admission that even if this was but an unfounded belief it revolutionized the outlook that the various peoples of the UK held for themselves and made little of any risk of internal conflict.


The countries were stable before the union. England alone was considered one of the richest nations of Europe.

So now England is part of Europe?

Bavaria would be one of the richest, if not the richest countries if they had their independence, so England is not alone in that respect.


You call them what they wish to be called. A person from England with sizeable English heritage is English. a person from Scotland with sizeable Scottish heritage is Scottish, and so on.

I see this in contradiction with your next statement.


Synthetic? What the bleeding hell are you going on about? The only synthetic political boudary ever created on this great big island was the Union of 1707 and continues to be so.

Yes. I do not contest that the Union established synthetic boundaries, but rather that devolution of the Union would require synthetic (political) boundaries.

If it is only a sizable (open to interpretation) amount of heritage that is required, then what of foreigners and mixed race individuals? I remember you stating that a certain Icelander would/should be happily accepted if he emigrate to the UK. Despite the fact that he has "sizable" English heritage, you later claim (in this thread) that someone is made "English" or "Scottish" etc due not to their racial background, but rather the locality of where they have been raised. This poses all sorts of problems.


What? There is an ethnicity called British?

I believe it would be more fitting and far less confusing if the politicization of such an ethnicity took place (if it has not already). The fact that you attribute so little to race (maintaining that one needs only a "sizable" amount of, say, English ancestry - not even half? And live in England, one might surely claim to be English!) is quite astounding for an apparent preservationist.

Call the spade a spade, even it isn't found in the yard.


What circumstances and how so?

Is not your wife Irish? I understand you have children with her too.

Manifest Destiny
08-26-2009, 08:58 PM
Northern Ireland should be given back to its rightful Irish owners. Whether or not Wales and Scotland want independence should be determined by their respective voters.

Æmeric
08-26-2009, 08:59 PM
If Scotland, Ulster, England & Wales go their seperate ways, who gets custody of the Windsors?

British and Proud
08-26-2009, 09:05 PM
Other - if a nation votes in a referendum to become independent, then fine.

Equinox
08-26-2009, 09:06 PM
Northern Ireland should be given back to its rightful Irish owners. Whether or not Wales and Scotland want independence should be determined by their respective voters.

Where would the Northern Irish (they are not of the same ethnicity as the rest of Ireland) go? This is exactly the kind of problem whereby the existence of political boundaries has given way to the creation of yet another distinct ethnicity.

Murphy
08-26-2009, 09:08 PM
If Scotland, Northern Ireland, England & Wales go their seperate ways, who gets custody of the Windsors?

Independent parliaments do not mean republics. Prior to the Acts of Union, the nations were all in personal union via the monarch and it worked perfectly fine for Scotland and England. Ireland was being raped by the English Parliament however, so not so good memories but there was at least a degree of independence. England just didn't want an economic threat as which Ireland posed.

Regards,
Eóin.

Manifest Destiny
08-26-2009, 09:09 PM
Where would the Northern Irish (they are not of the same ethnicity as the rest of Ireland) go? This is exactly the kind of problem whereby the existence of political boundaries has given way to the creation of yet another distinct ethnicity.

If the Irish don't want them, let the English take them back.

Murphy
08-26-2009, 09:10 PM
Where would the Northern Irish (they are not of the same ethnicity as the rest of Ireland) go? This is exactly the kind of problem whereby the existence of political boundaries has given way to the creation of yet another distinct ethnicity.

Northern Irish? No sorry. It's simply Irish.. they may be loyal to the crown, but they're Irishmen loyal to the crown.

Regards,
Eóin.

Óttar
08-26-2009, 09:10 PM
If Scotland, Ulster, England & Wales go their seperate ways, who gets custody of the Windsors?
They get a one way ticket to a "Celtic" fairy tale where everyone ironically wears anachronistic medieval French clothing, all the while distancing themselves from those awfully brutish German Huns who gave them the name Saxe-Coburg Gotha in the first place.

Æmeric
08-26-2009, 09:11 PM
They were in personal union but were not equal. What worked in the 17th century might not work out today.

Of course Australia, New Zealand & Canada are in "personal union" with the UK but there are movements to change Australia & New Zealand to republics on the grounds that the head of state should actually reside in those respective countries.

Murphy
08-26-2009, 09:13 PM
They were in personal union but were not equal. What worked in the 17th century might not work out today.

Of course they weren't equal and I don't advocate a return to the 17th century. I simply say that the situation could be like that as between Canada and the UK.


Of course Australia, New Zealand & Canada are in "personal union" with the UK but there are movements to change Australia & New Zealand to republics on the grounds that the head of state should actually reside in those respective countries.

If the Scots and English don't have a problem with it, then there should be no fuss.

Reards,
Eóin.

Óttar
08-26-2009, 09:14 PM
Where would the Northern Irish (they are not of the same ethnicity as the rest of Ireland) go? This is exactly the kind of problem whereby the existence of political boundaries has given way to the creation of yet another distinct ethnicity.
Lowland Scotland. That is if they couldn't stand to remain in the Irish republic. Or there's always the Independent 6 county Ulster third option. (http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/columnist_calls_for_independence.htm)

Æmeric
08-26-2009, 09:19 PM
Of course they weren't equal and I don't advocate a return to the 17th century. I simply say that the situation could be like that as between Canada and the UK.



If the Scots and English don't have a problem with it, then there should be no fuss.

Reards,
Eóin.

But there is more likely to be some personal conflict between England & Scotland over fisheries, offshore mineral rights, trade, cross border labor issues, etc... Is the Queen ereally to remain neutral on these issues?

Murphy
08-26-2009, 09:20 PM
Lowland Scotland.

Why would the Scots want a bunch of Irish immigrants? As that is how the Scots view Irish Protestants - Irish. Even the Loyalists view them as - Irish. I actually laugh at suggestions of some great solidarity between Scots and Ulster Irishmen. It honestly doesn't exist in the real world. There' friendship, but there is also friendship between Irishmen as a whole and Scotsmen as a whole.


That is if they couldn't stand to remain in the Irish republic.

It may not need be a republic ;)!


Or there's always the Independent 6 county Ulster third option.

What about in those counties where Irish Catholics are a majority and the only way the Brits have kept control si through severe gerrymandering? I think the counties are split down the middle here. A 3 county independent state, all with large Irish Catholic minorities who want a united Ireland? It would never work.

Regards,
Eóin.

Murphy
08-26-2009, 09:22 PM
But there is more likely to be some personal conflict between England & Scotland over fisheries, offshore mineral rights, trade, cross border labor issues, etc... Is the Queen ereally to remain neutral on these issues?

Yes, it's complicated. That's why I don't think anything will happen over night. It would be a long process. That's why I would never trust the SNP to head such a project. They would screw it up by rushing into it.

Regards,
Eóin.

Beorn
08-26-2009, 09:25 PM
Then it is by your own admission that even if this was but an unfounded belief it revolutionized the outlook that the various peoples of the UK held for themselves and made little of any risk of internal conflict.

It's certainly not an admission of the sort, but the 'various peoples of the UK' had next to no say upon the matter.
There are records of certain protests around the towns of England, but history remarks that Scotland took the Union farther to the extremes with such outrage that Edinburgh exploded in violent protest. Not one petition was in favour of the Union, yet it was foisted upon the nations...by whom?...the very same who now foist upon us the illegal concept of the EU.

As to revolutionising the outlook of the people and heralding the onset of a unified peace, I can't see how this would be a benefit of the Union when the peace was comparatively collected and the outlook of the people was one towards their own people and their own cultures.


So now England is part of Europe?

Of course it is, unless it has suddenly removed itself to just offshore of Argentina?


...but rather that devolution of the Union would require synthetic (political) boundaries.

How so? It is merely picking up from where it all stopped 300 odd years ago.


If it is only a sizable (open to interpretation) amount of heritage that is required, then what of foreigners and mixed race individuals?

A foreigner is just that. As for the mixed-race people of England I would be lying to myself if I didn't state they had a right to this nation as they too have blood and ties to this land, to be truthful I haven't given much thought to them. :)


I remember you stating that a certain Icelander would/should be happily accepted if he emigrate to the UK. Despite the fact that he has "sizable" English heritage, you later claim (in this thread) that someone is made "English" or "Scottish" etc due not to their racial background, but rather the locality of where they have been raised.

I've not stated as such. Could you please point out that comment by me?


The fact that you attribute so little to race (maintaining that one needs only a "sizable" amount of, say, English ancestry - not even half? And live in England, one might surely claim to be English!) is quite astounding for an apparent preservationist.

Not really. One has to realise that the people of the British Isles are near enough of the same stock separated merely by culture and history. Race has nothing to do with it, thus why I don't bring it into the discussion.


Is not your wife Irish? I understand you have children with her too.

She is, but how does this figure into the debate, sorry?

Beorn
08-26-2009, 09:28 PM
If the Irish don't want them, let the English take them back.

Why would the English want them? They are Irish, let the Irish have them.

Murphy
08-26-2009, 09:29 PM
Why would the English want them? They are Irish, let the Irish have them.

I would gladly welcome my fellow Irishmen with open arms. Most Irishmen would.

Regards,
Eóin.

Cato
08-26-2009, 09:33 PM
By request, I now give an opinion: the regions of the UK should be granted independence and, afterwards, each of these several regions should become new states of the US. :P

007
08-26-2009, 10:44 PM
If a devolution were indeed to occur, what are the chances that the European Union would want to assert direct control over these areas?

Precisely. In fact, I've no doubt that the EU sponsors these nationalist causes for precisely that reason. Wat is being remarkably naive in his response to your question.


About as great as the chances are for mass riots on the streets. These people have just gained independence not for it to be taken away without choice by some pseudo-European union.

The current government will allow devolution because it is in their interests to allow it, but they will not allow those devolved regions to cast off the EU yoke. First we have to get a government that will quit the EU. Then and only then can we quit the Union.


I don't think that anything is too small these days, Allenson - especially as the EU still provides assistance to those states that need it. Wales gets more assistance from the EU than other areas of the UK as it is, I doubt that this would change if it were to decide to become independent.

They could hardly be considered independent if they remained part of the EU. :confused:

Lahtari
08-27-2009, 07:20 AM
Part of me would support it as it would be a move toward the idea of a "Europe of 100 flags", which I find to be intriguing with its own set of implications. This would be a move toward decentralization, and a nod toward local governments, different economic policies and less tyrannical power structures.

Yes, and going further, think about the situation when there would be more small states and autonomous regions that would be forced to compete with each other for who's got the lowest taxes, least annoying bureaucracy, nicest environment, best infrastructure, most streamlined legislation... The very thought of the de-facto-communist bureaucrate and the ivory-tower politician getting a taste of the real world just makes a big, happy smile on my face. :icon_cheesygrin:


On the other hand, it would make migration difficult (I know you all are nodding your head in approval), but I like the freedom of being able to live and work in any EU country with an EU passport for my own personal enrichment.

Freedom of movement doesn't require a bureaucratic federal state. It requires a piece of paper with signatures written on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries#Nordic_Passport_Union


No thank you. We have been independent (recognized as such) since 1648.
But the last thing we need is another Balkan right next to us ^^

The Balkan situation is precisely a result of a multiethnic state that collapsed. It might be hard to imagine any serious ethnic conflicts between English and Scots for example, but how about when there will be no more goodies for everyone, who knows?

Lahtari
08-27-2009, 07:25 AM
If Frisia and the Netherlands have a near kinship to the English due to the language similarities, why shouldn't England be governed from Amsterdam or the Netherlands governed from London?

If North Americans have a kinship to the English due to language similarities, why shouldn't the Americans be governed from London?

(Sorry, just had to.. :icon_lol: :icon_lol:)


Yeah, I don't know where I got that English/Frisian connection..a misremembered bit of trivia on my part, doubtlessly.

Actually Frisian is the closest continental relative of English language. But English and Frisian/Dutch are still completely distinct ethnic identities.

Absinthe
08-27-2009, 11:33 AM
Well, much to the dismay of its distinct ethnic groups, Great Britain is one of the strongest and most accountable geopolitical forces of the world (with everything good and bad that implies), whereas I doubt that an independent Scotland, e.g. would have the same stand-alone geopolitical value and influence.

Plus, this is just what we need right now, even more segregation and civil arrest...

Beorn
08-27-2009, 12:20 PM
First we have to get a government that will quit the EU. Then and only then can we quit the Union.

All the independence parties advocate leaving the EU. The two are mutually exclusive.


Plus, this is just what we need right now, even more segregation and civil arrest...

Am I right in thinking you meant 'civil unrest'? With regards to the segregation of the peoples of the UK, how can I be segregated from a people who I don't belong to in the first place?

Absinthe
08-27-2009, 12:22 PM
All the independence parties advocate leaving the EU. The two are mutually exclusive.



Am I right in thinking you meant 'civil unrest'? With regards to the segregation of the peoples of the UK, how can I be segregated from a people who I don't belong to in the first place?
Yes, civil unrest (Freudian slip? :D) .....:p

"who you don't belong to in the first place"? ... :icon_ask:

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole United Kingdom idea was an invention of the English, wasn't it? :confused:

Murphy
08-27-2009, 02:21 PM
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole United Kingdom idea was an invention of the English, wasn't it? :confused:

No. Many Englishmen opposed the British Parliment as well. The UK was a Protestant-Jewish merchant/banking elite idea. Hell, that is unfair on many Protestants who were vehemently against the proposal. The Irish Protestants lost economically far worse than Irish Catholics as the Protestants held more land. I would say that opposistion to desolving the Irish Parliment was one of the only times in Irish history where Catholics and Protestants were fully united.

Funnily enough, the Protestants wanted an Irish Parliament to ensure their own hegemony in Ireland where as Irish Catholics believed that an Irish Parliament was their best chance at equality for themselves :p!

But of course, "the Crown", i.e., City of London, had most of the Irish MP's in their pocket so that ensured passing of the Acts of Union 1800.

Regards,
Eóin.

Beorn
08-27-2009, 03:30 PM
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole United Kingdom idea was an invention of the English, wasn't it? :confused:

Short answer: No.

Long answer: (and I'll just copy and paste my original post from Stirpes)

Whilst James I/VI was on the throne, he partook in a virulent attempt to rightfully disconnect the traditional English claims to Scotland's lands and titles, and saw fit to draw up a union which would help promote and cultivate a widespread British identity.

(It was no coincidence that under James, the plantations of Ireland and others dotted around the globe, became primary interest in receiving fresh populations derived from his new quested "British" empire.)

Now, what seems to be left out of many history recitals about this era leading ultimately up to the creation of the British union, was the very strong rejection for this union made by the English parliament of 1607 and 1670.
It is interesting to note that whilst the English were proposing outright to not impose the British Union, the Scottish parliament of 1641 and 1643 saw fit to usher and vote in for a federative unions, which would have still given the Scots their political independence, but kept them in a union to reap the benefits of England's economic glory. (Rings true today, huh? )

In 1664 and 1668, the Scottish parliament attempted again to instigate the union once more with the replacement of a Stuart monarch, but it was refused the time and space by the English parliament.

The next time was in 1674 and 1685, this time considered by the English parliament. It was unsuccessful and was returned to the drawing board once more. The Scottish would not have their federative union this time.

To cut the rest of this story short, it was only upon the arrival of a certain asthmatic Dutchman that the Union started to become an actual for sure conclusion, and with the succession of Queen Anne, the motion was once more considered with venom.

The rest is well known, I'm sure.

007
08-27-2009, 10:16 PM
All the independence parties advocate leaving the EU. The two are mutually exclusive.

Not if you don't quit the EU first they aren't.




Am I right in thinking you meant 'civil unrest'? With regards to the segregation of the peoples of the UK, how can I be segregated from a people who I don't belong to in the first place?

You've said you believe that all the people of the Blessed Isles are of the same race, yet you say that some of them are not your people? You want to be separated from the Scots but you will accept half-castes as English? :confused:


Why would the English want them? They are Irish, let the Irish have them.

That is just cold. The Cornish, the Manx, the Orcadians, the Shetlanders, the Channel islanders all deserve to have their own country, but to hell with the Ulster-Scots.

Beorn
08-28-2009, 05:24 AM
Not if you don't quit the EU first they aren't.

True.


You've said you believe that all the people of the Blessed Isles are of the same race, yet you say that some of them are not your people?

Culturally. It may drag upon your teeth when I say this, but the British Isles is a mongrel island separated by population extremes and culture. I share no defining culture with, say the Scottish, so they are not my people.


You want to be separated from the Scots but you will accept half-castes as English? :confused:

They are Englishzens. They are not ethnic English.


That is just cold. The Cornish, the Manx, the Orcadians, the Shetlanders, the Channel islanders all deserve to have their own country, but to hell with the Ulster-Scots.

I'm a very, very cold person when I want to be. I love the myriad of cultures and corners of the British Isles, but I know that the men of NI are not closer to me than they are their "enemy".

007
08-28-2009, 05:06 PM
True.


:thumb001:



Culturally. It may drag upon your teeth when I say this, but the British Isles is a mongrel island

That old saw! There's nothing mongrel about Britain, racially the people are all NW European. There's a brunet strain and a blonder strain, both equally white. The Celtic-Germanic divide has been overemphasised by Celtic nationalist mythmakers.



separated by population extremes and culture. I share no defining culture with, say the Scottish, so they are not my people.

Most of the Scot's "defining culture" is Celtic nationalist mythmaking. They are much closer to the English than they are to the Gaels racially and in their real culture




They are Englishzens. They are not ethnic English.

They are mongrels. Effluent in the gene pool.




I'm a very, very cold person when I want to be. I love the myriad of cultures and corners of the British Isles, but I know that the men of NI are not closer to me than they are their "enemy".

Well, there you're simply wrong. The Orangemen are descendants of British(Scottish, English and Welsh) colonists. It is absurd to tell them they are Irish and must learn Gaelic and join their enemy.

Beorn
08-28-2009, 05:22 PM
It is absurd to tell them they are Irish and must learn Gaelic and join their enemy.

What makes you think they'd have to learn Gaelic?

007
08-28-2009, 05:27 PM
What makes you think they wouldn't? Gaelic is taught in Irish schools.

Beorn
08-28-2009, 05:32 PM
What makes you think they wouldn't? Gaelic is taught in Irish schools.

Because I'm sure even after the split of the UK the "British Irish" would still stick to their own distinct culture and not suddenly adopt Irish language and Irish culture. Gaelic may be taught in schools, yet I've still to hear an Irishman conduct with internationals in Irish. English will be a dominant language for many years to come.

007
08-28-2009, 05:42 PM
Because I'm sure even after the split of the UK the "British Irish" would still stick to their own distinct culture and not suddenly adopt Irish language and Irish culture. Gaelic may be taught in schools, yet I've still to hear an Irishman conduct with internationals in Irish. English will be a dominant language for many years to come.

Well, now we're back to the point; if they have a distinct culture, why must they be considered Irish and made to join Ireland?

Irish is a mandatory subject in Irish schools, btw.

Beorn
08-28-2009, 05:59 PM
Well, now we're back to the point; if they have a distinct culture, why must they be considered Irish and made to join Ireland?

It is getting rather roundabout now :D But I never said they should become part of Ireland, but in answer to the question of what would be done with them, I don't follow on from the others on this forum who accept that they should be resettled in England or Scotland, as distinct as their culture may be from each other, the Irish and the Northern Irish have more in common with each other than they do any other nation in the British Isles.


Irish is a mandatory subject in Irish schools, btw.

I know :)

Óttar
08-28-2009, 06:27 PM
Gaelic is taught in Irish schools.
So? The Irish have been speaking English for 500+ years. I doubt it would kill the Protestants to learn the language of their neighbors. I'm an American, and I wish there was more of a push for us to learn Spanish and French. There's no reason why we should be monolingual if there are opportunities to learn other languages.

007
08-28-2009, 06:32 PM
It is getting rather roundabout now :D But I never said they should become part of Ireland, but in answer to the question of what would be done with them, I don't follow on from the others on this forum who accept that they should be resettled in England or Scotland, as distinct as their culture may be from each other, the Irish and the Northern Irish have more in common with each other than they do any other nation in the British Isles.

No, they don't. I say they should remain where they are and remain part of the British state. Ireland has no special right to be one state just because it's an island. Surely you would agree since you believe that Great Britain can and should be divided into separate states? I'd far rather re-settle the entire Ulster-Scot population of Ulster in England than accept a single half-caste. They'd be coming home and they aren't afraid to run off alien invaders




I know :)

Then you were being disingenous when you claimed they wouldn't be forced to adopt their enemy's culture


So?

So the Ulster-Scots should be forced to learn their enemy's language? A strange sentiment to hear on a preservationist board.

Beorn
08-28-2009, 06:41 PM
Ireland has no special right to be one state just because it's an island.

I never said they did. As I've pointed out, I was merely saying that the people of Northern Ireland are not English, Scottish, Welsh or Cornish or whatever, they are Irish.


Then you were being disingenous when you claimed they wouldn't be forced to adopt their enemy's culture

Who says they would be forced to learn Gaelic?

Óttar
08-28-2009, 06:51 PM
So the Ulster-Scots should be forced to learn their enemy's language?
Gaelic is a part of Ireland's heritage. Gaelic is a part of Scotland's heritage as well. Just because they are predominantly Lowland Scots means that they should remain ignorant of their neighbors? It couldn't hurt to learn another language of the British isles.

There's no need to encourage Protestant vs. Catholic antagonism. It should be a thing of the past. Evolve.

007
08-28-2009, 11:05 PM
Gaelic is a part of Ireland's heritage. Gaelic is a part of Scotland's heritage as well. Just because they are predominantly Lowland Scots means that they should remain ignorant of their neighbors? It couldn't hurt to learn another language of the British isles.

There's no need to encourage Protestant vs. Catholic antagonism. It should be a thing of the past. Evolve.

All I'm encouraging is for Wat to give the Ulster-Scots the same consideration he's willing to extend even to the Channel Islanders, their own identity, which doesn't include Gaelic. This being a free country, after a fashion, there's nothing stopping anybody who wishes to waste their time learning a dying language but it's definitely anti-preservationist to force outsiders to learn it against their will


Who says they would be forced to learn Gaelic?

You did. "Let the Irish have them", remember? And they're not Irish, mate. Why you wish to lump them with the Irish when other groups with far less claim to distinctiveness are reckoned to be different is beyond me

Beorn
08-29-2009, 01:04 AM
You did. "Let the Irish have them", remember?

That was in response to everyone saying "let the English have them". I'd rather they were not foisted upon the English, as they are more Irish than they are English.

Murphy
08-29-2009, 11:07 AM
And they're not Irish, mate.

Do not disregard the fact that Unionists have been living in Ireland for the past 400 years, Ireland is the land of their birth. Up until very recently Unionists had absolutely no problem in accepting their Irishness, their icon, Carson (a hurler in fact), was from Dublin and it is a statue of him that stands outside Stormont today. It was only with the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 that Unionists attempted to jettison their Irish identity and neglect what they had espoused for about 300 years previously, in other words it was a bit of a farce. Orangism is a uniquely Irish phenomenon and is often scorned in Britain itself as another manifestation of boorish Irish tribalism. In short Unionists are "British" because they choose to affiliate to the Union, but there is no escaping the fact they are also Irish.

This whole nonsense surrounding the idea of an "Ulster-Scot" nation is completely ludicrous and is an insult to history. The Irish Protestants have a uniqie tradition and identity within the Irish nation but to deny the very core fact that they are Irish... most Irish Protestants pre-partition would have laughed at you and set you damn well straight that they are Irishmen.

I am all for Protestants who celebrate their Scottish and English ancestry, just as I celebrate my Gaelic ancestry and I know people who celebrate their Anglo-Norman ancestry. But first and foremost we are all Irish. The average, everyday Irish-Ulster Protestant doesn't give a damn about being an "Ulster-Scot" or any movement to secure some mythical "Ulster-Scots" language. He is an Irishman loyal to the Crown. Once upon a time it being British and being Irish were not considered exclusive by most. Look at Daniel O'Connell as an example he was a Catholic Irishman would considered himself Irish but was also loyal to the Crown and condemned the Republican Rebellions in the late 1700s. Try not to let people like Masty inform you on the Irish Protestants or the Irish people in general... he's a laughing-stock. On another note, Irish Protestants are only a majority in two counties, so how about we give them those two and we get the 4 ;)?

Regarding the Irish language... I do not believe it should be mandatory anywhere. That's not a healthy way to ensure the survival of the Irish language.

Regards,
Eóin.

007
08-29-2009, 05:18 PM
Masty's a good bloke. :thumb001: BTW, he's not my sole source for Ulster-Scot history, there's also Loving Bledsoe. They definitely have their own language, a dialect of Scots, and are not Irish in the sense of being descended from the Gaels or closely related to the descendants of the Gaels. They are more closely related to the English and Lowland Scots. I don't see how you can deny this. Just as Americans of British descent are closely related to the British. "Being born in a stable doesn't make a gentleman a horse."

I applaud your common sense in regards to mandatory language instruction

masty
08-29-2009, 08:37 PM
Try not to let people like Masty inform you on the Irish Protestants or the Irish people in general... he's a laughing-stock.I think you should register at masty.loyalist.co.uk

Murphy
08-29-2009, 09:09 PM
Masty's a good bloke. :thumb001: BTW, he's not my sole source for Ulster-Scot history, there's also Loving Bledsoe. They definitely have their own language, a dialect of Scots, and are not Irish in the sense of being descended from the Gaels or closely related to the descendants of the Gaels. They are more closely related to the English and Lowland Scots. I don't see how you can deny this. Just as Americans of British descent are closely related to the British. "Being born in a stable doesn't make a gentleman a horse."

You are bad as Republicans. If it isn't Gaelic it cannot be Irish :rolleyes:! Many of the finest Irishmen in history were from Anglo-Norman heritage, and theit blood was as Irish as any other Irishmens! And this talk of their own dialect... please. I actualyl laughed out loud.

Regards,
Eóin.

Murphy
08-29-2009, 09:12 PM
I think you should register at masty.loyalist.co.uk

Oh wow, Masty. You're here are you? I thought you would be to busy out lynching Catholics up the Shankill :rolleyes:!

Eóin.

masty
08-29-2009, 09:20 PM
Oh wow, Masty. You're here are you? I thought you would be to busy out lynching Catholics up the Shankill :rolleyes:!

Eóin.I am up the Shankill right now, this is just a hologram typing this.....

masty
08-29-2009, 09:23 PM
Eóin.You sound like some twat from oirish-nat.net, am I right? Which dickhead are you?

007
08-29-2009, 09:26 PM
You are bad as Republicans. If it isn't Gaelic it cannot be Irish :rolleyes:!


You're a multicultist, I take it?



Many of the finest Irishmen in history were from Anglo-Norman heritage, and theit blood was as Irish as any other Irishmens!


Well, you've just said they were of Anglo-Norman heritage, so their blood would be Anglo-Norman, then, not Irish.


And this talk of their own dialect... please. I actualyl laughed out loud.


Well, they have their own dialect just the same whether it amuses you or not

Murphy
08-29-2009, 09:27 PM
You sound like some twat from oirish-nat.net, am I right? Which dickhead are you?

Jumping to conclusions.. I just think you're a cunt. I don't have to carry an agenda from I-N etc., I just think you're plain and simply a cunt.

Regards,
Eóin.

masty
08-29-2009, 09:35 PM
Jumping to conclusions.. I just think you're a cunt. I don't have to carry an agenda from I-N etc., I just think you're plain and simply a cunt.

Regards,
Eóin.I know a few o' the lads from C.U.N.T. as it happens, I would be proud to be a C.U.N.T. Covert Undercover Nuisance Tactics: http://covert-tactics.blogspot.com/ :thumb001:

"I don't have to carry an agenda from I-N etc.,"So you do post there, who as? Or is it a secret?

masty
08-29-2009, 09:41 PM
Gotta get one of these.....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IT8laIqWvNs/SoknaO6uQ3I/AAAAAAAABYg/_tfZW8Hxmkw/s1600/jesus%2Bshirt.jpg

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 09:42 PM
Alright- the pair of you. Stop flaming each other. You are not in Derry !

Treffie
08-29-2009, 09:44 PM
Guys, please be civilised in the way that you address each other.

masty
08-29-2009, 09:46 PM
Alright- the pair of you. Stop flaming each other. You are not in Derry !Thats Londonderry yer talking about. Just having a bit o' the crack like with yer-man is all.

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 09:50 PM
Thats Londonderry yer talking about. Just having a bit o' the crack like with yer-man is all.
The Irish call it Derry. It may be under British rule but I think the original name counts more. Like I would never use Lille for Rijssel, Bruxelles for Brussel, Calais for Kales or Tournai for Doornik.
Those names are completely artificial.

masty
08-29-2009, 10:09 PM
Londonderry is the official name for the City. Thats it's name, thats what it's called.


http://www.thereformation.info/Derry%20facts.htm

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 10:14 PM
The original name is Doire Cholmchille or Doire. And it only received the Anglified name Londonderry in 1662.
It is just as idiotic as claiming that Lille is the official name of Rijssel. In that way you make an occupation of a city legal. And that's non-preservationistic because you then disrespect it's origins and history for nothing but political reasons.

masty
08-29-2009, 10:27 PM
Thats not even in English. You try telling the people of the Waterside Fountain estate what the name of their City is? No offense like..... :D

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 11:14 PM
Thats not even in English. You try telling the people of the Waterside Fountain estate what the name of their City is? No offense like..... :D
For how many generations have the people called it their City ? I don't think that the French inhabitants of Rijssel have any right to call it their City either and they should at best be seen as esteemed guests. Would the Turkish inhabitants of Amsterdam have any right to give it another name and call it their City ?

So if you write about it- call it Derry.

(No hatred for the French, Turks or British here. The place simply isn't yours.)

Æmeric
08-29-2009, 11:20 PM
The original name is Doire Cholmchille or Doire. And it only received the Anglified name Londonderry in 1662.
It is just as idiotic as claiming that Lille is the official name of Rijssel. In that way you make an occupation of a city legal. And that's non-preservationistic because you then disrespect it's origins and history for nothing but political reasons.

347 years is a long time. And just what was at the location of Londonderry before the English got there? Just a small hamlet?

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 11:23 PM
347 years is a long time. And just what was at the location of Londonderry before the English got there? Just a small hamlet?
There was an earlier town across the Foyle. But you would consider it legal too by the way if the Turks would be here for 347 years ? Or the Mexicans in your town ?

007
08-29-2009, 11:28 PM
Yes, same as the towns and cities Euros built in North America.

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 11:29 PM
Yes, same as the towns and cities Euros built in North America.
That means that you are only in favor of preservationism as long as it suits your own political goals.

007
08-29-2009, 11:33 PM
I'm interested in preservation because my people are under attack. I'm not interested in making all the Euros leave North America or whether the Irish christened the place Londonderry.

Taking preservation to it's extreme would suggest that as an Anglian I move back to Denmark.

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 11:37 PM
I'm interested in preservation because my people are under attack. I'm not interested in making all the Euros leave North America or whether the Irish christened the place Londonderry.
I am interested in the preservations of all Europeans as we are linked to each other. That means that we Europeans should not occupy each other's lands anymore. And that is what the Ulster-situation, or the Southern Flanders-situation, the situation around Brussels, effectively is. And changing names is a symbol of an occupation. I think that the prefix London- makes the political claim very clear.

007
08-29-2009, 11:39 PM
Do you think the Ulster-Scots should move home to Britain? What about us Anglians, should we go back to Denmark?

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 11:42 PM
Do you think the Ulster-Scots should move home to Britain? What about us Anglians, should we go back to Denmark?
No- the basis is the modern nation state and the people that exist now. English, Scots etc.
Each have a right to self-determination. The Ulster-Scots are indeed a problem as they are the descendants of the colonists but they should have every right to stay where they are now. But for Irish towns (including Ulster) and cities Irish names should be used.

In the same way using French names for Flemish towns, cities and villages is incorrect. They are Flemish and stolen from the Flemish. Using Russian names for the towns stolen from Germany (East Prussia) is just as incorrect. They were German.

007
08-29-2009, 11:43 PM
Well, in addition to having the right to stay, I reckon they have the right to name their towns, especially in the English language. :D

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 11:45 PM
Well, in addition to having the right to stay, I reckon they have the right to name their towns, especially in the English language. :D
Has there been a policy of bilingualism ?

Skandi
08-29-2009, 11:47 PM
I am interested in the preservations of all Europeans as we are linked to each other. That means that we Europeans should not occupy each other's lands anymore. And that is what the Ulster-situation, or the Southern Flanders-situation, the situation around Brussels, effectively is. And changing names is a symbol of an occupation. I think that the prefix London- makes the political claim very clear.

Oh for goodness sakes then I demand Brittany back, oh and I want my country back after 1066.. Oh no actually I want to go back to this


Canute the Great (Knud den Store in Danish) 1016-35

His empire covered England, Denmark, Norway, parts of Sweden and overlordship in Scotland. At the Holy Roman emperor's coronation in Rome, Canute was at his side.
That needs to be reunited as one country and run from the capital as it was at the time. Winchester (my home town)
We cannot turn back time and wanting "occupations" that don't exist to end is silly, where would the people go? They have been born there remember. If you uproot them then the land belongs to nobody.

Skandi
08-29-2009, 11:49 PM
No- the basis is the modern nation state and the people that exist now. English, Scots etc.
Each have a right to self-determination. The Ulster-Scots are indeed a problem as they are the descendants of the colonists but they should have every right to stay where they are now. But for Irish towns (including Ulster) and cities Irish names should be used.

In the same way using French names for Flemish towns, cities and villages is incorrect. They are Flemish and stolen from the Flemish. Using Russian names for the towns stolen from Germany (East Prussia) is just as incorrect. They were German.

Do we need to go back to the Roman names??? Or Anglo Saxon. Names change, sometimes it's just a slow drift other times it is more radical. You cannot hold back time.

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 11:50 PM
Oh for goodness sakes then I demand Brittany back, oh and I want my country back after 1066.. Oh no actually I want to go back to this
I am talking about modern nation-states.



That needs to be reunited as one country and run from the capital as it was at the time. Winchester (my home town)
We cannot turn back time and wanting "occupations" that don't exist to end is silly, where would the people go? They have been born there remember. If you uproot them then the land belongs to nobody.
Half your country wasn't stolen was it ? In essence you can say that the Netherlands lost three-quarters of it's soil. I am sorry but invaders are squatters and I don't think that those living on lands that were stolen have much of a right to be there. Like the Turks have no right to be here either.



Do we need to go back to the Roman names??? Or Anglo Saxon. Names change, sometimes it's just a slow drift other times it is more radical. You cannot hold back time.
Very well. I hope that you like living in
نگلستان
Because that it's rightful name then.

Skandi
08-29-2009, 11:52 PM
I am talking about modern nation-states.


The modern nation states did not exist at this time, they were just forming so the modern nation state of Britain included NI.

Please also remember that YOUR germanic ancestors also stole lands. where do you want to put the line?

The Lawspeaker
08-29-2009, 11:55 PM
The modern nation states did not exist at this time, they were just forming so the modern nation state of Britain included NI.

Please also remember that YOUR germanic ancestors also stole lands. where do you want to put the line?
As I said the modern states that developed from the Middle Ages onwards. France, England, Scotland, the German lands, the Netherlands etc.

Skandi
08-30-2009, 12:04 AM
As I said the modern states that developed from the Middle Ages onwards. France, England, Scotland, the German lands, the Netherlands etc.

The nation states (place with government) were developed from the 1600's and 1700's not the middle ages. England is still not a state, and Scotland could be classified as one possibly but not a true state and that has only been one since. 1998.
Germany became a modern state in 1850 something much much later than NI became part of Britain
If you wish to whinge about nations moving their borders, then maybe you want Germany to split, and Spain and Italy and... in that case you would end up with several hundred small countries each with absolutely no power and therefore no way of securing their borders.

The Lawspeaker
08-30-2009, 12:09 AM
The nation states (place with government) were developed from the 1600's and 1700's not the middle ages. England is still not a state, and Scotland could be classified as one possibly but not a true state and that has only been one since. 1998.
Germany became a modern state in 1850 something much much later than NI became part of Britain
If you wish to whinge about nations moving their borders, then maybe you want Germany to split, and Spain and Italy and... in that case you would end up with several hundred small countries each with absolutely no power and therefore no way of securing their borders.
France was a nation state in the Middle Ages when it was already united under one King. And so was England btw- and so was Scotland. Untill the Union of Utrecht (1579) the Netherlands was nothing but a quarreling bunch of fiefdoms.
But one can say that the Dutch peoples were taken away from each other. First in the North-South separation and further by the French invasions of Flanders under Louis XIV.
The Germans lost for instance East Prussia in 1945 and millions were deported. Is it Russian land ? No- it is stolen. Likewise Northern Ireland is stolen land.
Actually the borders in Europe should be redrawn on ethnic borders as existed before the wholesale subjugation of lands during the 17th to 20th century.

007
08-30-2009, 12:13 AM
Has there been a policy of bilingualism ?

Not so far as I know.

The Lawspeaker
08-30-2009, 12:15 AM
Not so far as I know.
Now that would be unfair.

007
08-30-2009, 12:19 AM
Too bad, I'm not paying for government services to be provided in Gaelic to people who stopped using that language years ago

Skandi
08-30-2009, 12:38 AM
France was a nation state in the Middle Ages when it was already united under one King. And so was England btw- and so was Scotland. Untill the Union of Utrecht (1579) the Netherlands was nothing but a quarreling bunch of fiefdoms.
But one can say that the Dutch peoples were taken away from each other. First in the North-South separation and further by the French invasions of Flanders under Louis XIV.
The Germans lost for instance East Prussia in 1945 and millions were deported. Is it Russian land ? No- it is stolen. Likewise Northern Ireland is stolen land.
Actually the borders in Europe should be redrawn on ethnic borders as existed before the wholesale subjugation of lands during the 17th to 20th century.

No that is not the definition of the word state. and that appears to be what we are arguing about.
A state = Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government:
The countries you mention were nations but not states. Equally France did not have the same borders then as it does now.

You cannot redraw the borders in the way you are proposing, because ethnicities do not have nice sharply defined lines. and fuzzy borders are not going to work well are they? equally you will have to pick a date not a span of 300 years. But England would be fine, we'll get most of the south of Scotland.

Æmeric
08-30-2009, 01:31 AM
There was an earlier town across the Foyle. But you would consider it legal too by the way if the Turks would be here for 347 years ? Or the Mexicans in your town ?

About 90% of the Mexicans in the US have been here less time then I've been alive. But since you bring up the Turks.... they've had Istanbul (Constantinople) since 1453. Should we demand they return it to the Greeks? And what about the English, should they return England to the Welsh? What is your statue of limitations for rectifying old land disputes.

Beorn
08-30-2009, 01:47 AM
And what about the English, should they return England to the Welsh?

The majority of the English are the Welsh only with a new name and a new culture.

Æmeric
08-30-2009, 01:49 AM
The majority of the English are the Welsh only with a new name and a new culture.

Who told you that?":wink

Treffie
08-30-2009, 01:50 AM
The majority of the English are the Welsh only with a new name and a new culture.

I know that there are a lot of English of Welsh descent but I wouldn't say that it's the majority, Wat.

Even my imagination couldn't stretch that far :p

Beorn
08-30-2009, 01:54 AM
Who told you that?":wink

Genetic studies conducted in regards to the English population.


I know that there are a lot of English of Welsh descent but I wouldn't say that it's the majority, Wat.

I didn't mean as in they were from Wales originally and then became English. (Like Tom Jones for instance...oh wait!, he became Welsh! ;):D)

Æmeric
08-30-2009, 01:57 AM
Genetic studies conducted in regards to the English population.



j617mImHVvk

Beorn
08-30-2009, 01:58 AM
Are we going to keep pulling out old hat or dive into the new evidence? :)

Æmeric
08-30-2009, 02:00 AM
Where is your new evidence?

Beorn
08-30-2009, 02:07 AM
Where is your new evidence?

So as not to veer off from the subject of whether the UK should be split up, currently being conducted in the England forum, I would say that the subject has been discussed here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3130) and not much else can be added to it by me personally.

Loki
08-30-2009, 09:21 AM
The majority of the English are the Welsh only with a new name and a new culture.

You've just taken your own soul. :wink

Liffrea
08-30-2009, 11:46 AM
Not to change subject but I wouldn’t place too much credence in these genetic surveys, they aren’t really that reliable at all.

All haplogroup markers show is migratory routes (at best), which are difficult to date and on a personal level only display ancestral markers for a single ancestor, missing out the thousands of other ancestors you have.

Until genetics advances to the stage that true population genetics can be studied in depth I feel that genetic surveys are the least important source of evidence there is.

Beorn
08-30-2009, 01:12 PM
You've just taken your own soul. :wink

Not at all. I'm English. Not some over bloated belief that I am teh purest Anglo-Saxon(=English), but English.


Not to change subject but I wouldn’t place too much credence in these genetic surveys, they aren’t really that reliable at all.

Have you ever visited this (http://www.uepengland.com/bbs/index.php?act=idx) forum? They have that mantra tattooed on their arms so they can each see it as they form their internet shield wall. :D

Barreldriver
08-30-2009, 03:06 PM
I know that there are a lot of English of Welsh descent but I wouldn't say that it's the majority, Wat.

Even my imagination couldn't stretch that far :p

Especially since paternal DNA types found in the Isle's are shared mostly by Germanic counterparts on the continent.

For instance U106, a NW type frequent among England, Scandinavia, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Alps, Germany, etc...

Then M467, found in England, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, and Russia.

S26 found in England and Germany (this one is believed to be the most likely candidate for the Saxon type given that it is found among people with roots in the typically "Saxon" areas of England).

L48/S162 has largely been attributed to the Flemish participation in the Norman conquest, and has been dubbed Anglo-Norman, Scottish-Norman, "Ashkenazim-Norman" strictly based on the surnames and ancestral origins (England, Scotland, Wales, Picardy and Belarus Ashkenazim), this last mention of the Ashkenazim leads me to believe some of these Jews were converted Europeans rather than Jews squatting, especially since this is a Frisiavone haplotgroup:

Among other versions of the L47* cluster origin is the version connected with Cohors Primae Frisiavonum — The First Cohort of Frisiavones who served in Britain during 103-249 AD and whos dscendants could be assimilated between Brythons.



R-M153 is the Basque/Gascon R1b, no connection to the Isle's so far.

M-167 Mostly a Basque type, but found in very low frequencies among all Western European areas ranging from Iberia, to Germany, to the British Isle's.

S28 = the Alpine German

L21 = common in the British Isles, appears in France, Germany and Scandinavia, but is rare in Iberian or Italian ancestry. (This most likely a Germanic type, Normans, Saxons and Norsemen explain it in the Isle's, Germany, France, and Scandinavia, East Germanics and such explain it in Italy).

M222 = Scotts Irish



Given these types you see that the majority of these are shared by British, Belgic, and Germanic groups, suggesting a common core root and dominance, the presence of all these "Celto-Germanic" or "Germanic" types as the majority in the Isle's suggests to me that the Welsh or the Brython's (more properly) are not the majority or an entirely exclusive group.

safinator
02-20-2012, 05:29 PM
Yes, Scotland and Wales must be indipendent.

Comte Arnau
02-20-2012, 09:41 PM
What about the Channel Islands?

gandalf
02-20-2012, 09:46 PM
You mean french islands ?

Comte Arnau
02-20-2012, 10:58 PM
No, I mean the Norman Islands.

Nixon
02-20-2012, 11:03 PM
Northern Ireland and Scotland as a separate area with no Muslims allowed. :thumb001:

*or African asylum seekers

AFC_Lad
02-20-2012, 11:46 PM
no.

CommonSense
08-28-2018, 07:57 PM
It's their right to do what they want. Only Scotland seems to have an independence movement going, though obviously neither the mood among the people, nor the international situation allow it to succeed.

Joso
08-28-2018, 07:58 PM
yes, separatism is freedom