Should N.Ireland be an independent state? - Page 2 - Political Forum

Goldstone69 · 04-07-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mairead

The majority in Scotland do NOT wish to remain part of the Uk in spite of what you may believe.
No part of the UK is free to decide it's own future or to make it's own mistakes, and I include England in that. Even the devolved goverment in Scotland is hampered by Westminster.

The Polls clearly show the majority do not want independence (with the exception of one in 2006) i am unclear as to why you think otherwise.
The latest poll only showed 25% wanted independence.

UK Polling Report » Scottish Independence

Even if we were all independent nations we would still not be free to make our own mistakes unless of course you envisage us all leaving the EU

Slartibartfas · 04-07-2008, 01:51 PM

I think a strong autonomy and tight cooperation with Ireland will be a better choice for North Ireland. I also think it will serve a better job for maintaining peace as well.

North Ireland can look at Südtirol if it searches for an example where it works pretty fine that way.

nerv14 · 04-07-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

Who are the largest Native American group and make up less than 100,000. Gee, there are more Swede-Americans in the small state of Maine than there are Lakota Indians.

Their claims are that the white man stole Indian lands and should return them, but their population is relatively insignifigant. By the standards you've set, we'd much sooner see Irish Boston (or the Texans) declare independence than we would see Lakota Indians.

To the civil war, that is a pretty bad contradiction. Northern Ireland is a relatively small area, with a relatively small group of people (a few million, correct?). The South declared independence, mostly due to unfair taxes (see wikipedia on the morrill tarriff, an import tarriff at which point the South, with a little over 1/4 the American citizens, paid some 80% of the taxes collected). It was a tarriff designed to force Southerners, who live on agriculture (i.e. King Cotton), to stop buying their finished products from Britain and start buying lower quality, more expensive products from the Northern Industries. The Federal government was helping the North at the cost of the South.

This war was not about slavery, the abolition was a bi-product of it. Lincoln said repeatedly that he was fighting to maintain the Union (compare to Britain fighting to maintain the Union, denying independence to Americans, Irish, Northern Irish, Scottish, except in this case the bloodshed was much worse). Ulysses S. Grant, the commander of the Union Army, said that if the Civil War was to abolish slavery he'd fight for the South. Many Southern leaders denounced slavery and freed slaves, such as Lee, Jackson and Longstreet. The war wasn't about slavery, you need to forget that sentiment.

I wasn't sure about the population of Lakota tribes and if it is only 100,000 than they obviously wouldn't have enough people to create their own country. I think I would set the limit for a group of people to create their own country if it was around the size of an United State's state.

I was bringing up the example of the Civil War not to make a statement about the situations that caused the war to start, but just to admit that I am against that war, even though it involved a huge population trying to become its own separate country. I wasn't making any comparison about slavery at all.

Even though this is kind of off topic I would disagree with your reasons for the Civil War because even though the war was not fought to end slavery the vast majority of the causes of the war were because of slavery. The average tariff from the American Revolution to the Civil War actualy declined at a steady rate to the lowest tariff in American history at the eve of the war. If you look at the moments when the tensions between the North and the South increased it was almost always because of slavery.

scotsgait · 04-11-2008, 06:49 PM

It's an artificial construct which, with understanding, may ultimately end up rejoined with its neighbours.

Change · 04-11-2008, 07:12 PM

Arab League · 04-11-2008, 10:43 PM

im not very familiar with the problem... i mean, my knowledge of the situation comes from a couple of Hollywood movies, and some News info... but in my opinion, N.Ireland should be part of its southern homeland, but on another hand... whats the point, i mean, in a decade of so they will all considered to be European, instead of Irish or English... i mean, they will all be under the European Constitution, (which will pass, sooner or later)... and under a Unified European Government.

scotsgait · 04-12-2008, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldstone69

The Polls clearly show the majority do not want independence (with the exception of one in 2006) i am unclear as to why you think otherwise.
The latest poll only showed 25% wanted independence.

UK Polling Report » Scottish Independence

Not so.
One this week is showing a 10% rise in support for independence since the summer. Last August, only 31% of Scots were in favour of independence, with 49% opposed; this month, those in favour had leapt 10 points to 41%, while those against had fallen six points to 43%.

jaro · 04-12-2008, 05:15 AM

I think Northern Ireland should reunite with the Republic of Ireland, but it will take some time until majority agrees. The comparison with South Tirol is not accurate, since there are only 35% Germans there, and they can never rejoin with Austria. Perhaps more people in NI would agree to separate from Britain if they were to keep their autonomous status within the Republic of Ireland.

Slartibartfas · 04-12-2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaro

I think Northern Ireland should reunite with the Republic of Ireland, but it will take some time until majority agrees. The comparison with South Tirol is not accurate, since there are only 35% Germans there, and they can never rejoin with Austria. Perhaps more people in NI would agree to separate from Britain if they were to keep their autonomous status within the Republic of Ireland.

You should look up the numbers again regarding Südtirol. The fact that they fused it together with an Italian province in order to press down the share of German speakers in statistics does not change the share in Südtirol itself.

Südtirol is to 69% populated by German speakers and only to 26% by Italians. Whereas the Italians live mostly in the few large towns, most of them in Bozen. With the exeption of the larger towns of Meran and Brixen that are still having a German speaking majority.

And now compare this to North Ireland with 48% having a catholic background while 53% have a Protestant background.

Your argumentation seems highly inconsistent in my eyes.

jaro · 04-12-2008, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

You should look up the numbers again regarding Südtirol. The fact that they fused it together with an Italian province in order to press down the share of German speakers in statistics does not change the share in Südtirol itself.

Südtirol is to 69% populated by German speakers and only to 26% by Italians. Whereas the Italians live mostly in the few large towns, most of them in Bozen. With the exeption of the larger towns of Meran and Brixen that are still having a German speaking majority.

And now compare this to North Ireland with 48% having a catholic background while 53% have a Protestant background.

Your argumentation seems highly inconsistent in my eyes.

I was speaking about the region Trentino-Alto Adige which consists of 2 provinces - Bolzano and Trento. In the whole region, there is only 35% of German speakers, while in Bolzano its 69%. As far as I know the whole region (Bolzano + Trento) was part of Austria, and nothing was attached to it to lower the proportion of German speakers. However due to disastrous foreign policy of Austria in 19th and then 20th century, loss of this territory and relocation of Italians from Italy into this region, fleeing German speakers after WW2, the proportion of German speakers decreased. If Austria wasn't so pro nazi in WW2, perhaps the region could have been recovered at that time. It is impossible that the whole region could some day be returned to Austria. The inconsistency you discovered is actually caused by the fact, that the whole region Trentino-Alto Adige is sometimes referred to as South Tyrol, but this name is also used for the Bolzano province of Trentino-Alto Adige. I was speaking about the region, you about the province. In the future, however it is possible that Bolzano province could be reunited with Austria if Austria manages to convince Italians to either return it for free or to sell it.

The difference between South Tyrol and NI is also geographical - NI belongs geographically to Ireland, while the same cannot be said about South Tyrol.