Islands of unity or disunity

[matacaster]

Can anyone explain why there are always calls from some for a united island of Ireland yet others want to disunite Scotland from the island of Great Britain?

 

[Iskra]

Politics

 

[XAM2175]

Can anyone explain why there are always calls from some for a united island of Ireland yet others want to disunite Scotland from the island of Great Britain?

On a point of semantics first: the outcome sought by the 'nationalist' side in Ireland is reunification, i.e. reversing the Partition of Ireland that in 1921 split the island between Northern Ireland and what became the Irish Free State, the predecessor to today's Republic.

On a second point of semantics: describing Scottish independence as "[wanting] to disunite Scotland from the island of Great Britain" is just weird. The outcome sought here is that Scotland no longer be a part of the unitary state that is the United Kingdom.

The two are neither mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure if you're asking this because you think the two movements have an inherent relation to each other.

 

[Acfb]

Can anyone explain why there are always calls from some for a united island of Ireland yet others want to disunite Scotland from the island of Great Britain?

I find it odd as well. I have always opposed Scottish independence although I have become more sympathetic to the idea of Irish Unity in recent years and I think the Tory attitude towards Ireland has been considerable worse than Scotland. I never really considered the issue of sectaraisnism in the West of Scotland until recently. That said I've never been to the island of Ireland, although I went on holiday with some Irish folk a dew years back and they were completely scathing about the Tories behaviour towards Ireland (and this was in 2018 under May).

I see the idea of Irish unity as more legitimate based on the issues Brexit has thrown up compared with Scottish independence which is still more of a weird identity fad based on a wide generational split.

I think George Galloway has actually argued quite well on this topic, supporting the unity of the island of Ireland and opposing partition of Great Britain.

It's also extremely likely we will now have both an SF First Minister in Northern Ireland next year and an SF Taoiseach in a few years time (Sinn Fein has just hit a record 37%).

 

[DerekC]

Can anyone explain why there are always calls from some for a united island of Ireland yet others want to disunite Scotland from the island of Great Britain?

The easy answer is because different people want different things, but there is history behind both movements. Ireland was united until 1922. Scotland was independent until the Act of Union of 1707 (although sharing a monarch with England since 1603). I think a majority of people in the island of Ireland see it as one country and a majority of people in Scotland see it as as separate country, albeit many of the latter still support the union.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2021 ==

I see the idea of Irish unity as more legitimate based on the issues Brexit has thrown up compared with Scottish independence which is still more of a weird identity fad based on a wide generational split.
.

A weird identity fad based on a wide generational split is exactly how you could describe Brexit. Emotional things like that can be very powerful, as we have seen.

 

[Busaholic]

Can anyone explain why there are always calls from some for a united island of Ireland yet others want to disunite Scotland from the island of Great Britain?

Where do you start? Have you got a couple of centuries to wait for an answer. which still might not come to firm conclusions?

 

[Farang]

You might like to have a read of 'The Isles' written by Norman Davies. It's a history of the British Isles, and at the end he concludes that, given all the different configurations of states that have existed on the British Isles, the only constant is change.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Can anyone explain why there are always calls from some for a united island of Ireland yet others want to disunite Scotland from the island of Great Britain?

Scotland and England are distinct nations despite being on the same island.
Northern Ireland, no disrespect to the residents at all, is a fragment of the Irish nation (not the same as the Republic of Ireland). and also a fragment of the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Both points of view are for Northern Ireland to be united with a larger state. It's entirely a different point of view to saying Scotland should decide it's own future.
No one in Northern Ireland would seriously promote the idea of self rule, as the political power sharing would stall each other party and the system would fail, in Scotland the political parties tend to be workable for coalitions.
What I fail to understand is some saying Scotland should be separate from England so it has total independence, while also promoting the idea of granting powers to the European Union.

 

[brad465]

I've always wondered why Northern Ireland re-joining the Republic to become a "United Ireland" is considered a Nationalist point of view, when technically it's an alternative unionist position. If NI wanted to be outright independent that would definitely be nationalist, but that point of view is very uncommon in the grand scheme of things.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I've always wondered why Northern Ireland re-joining the Republic to become a "United Ireland" is considered a Nationalist point of view, when technically it's an alternative unionist position. If NI wanted to be outright independent that would definitely be nationalist, but that point of view is very uncommon in the grand scheme of things.

Irish is a nationality, British isn't really one, with Scottish, English and Welsh nationalities existing, hence the term Unionism.

Think of Northern Ireland as East Germany, it's a part of Germany, it's people are Germans, even if the puppet government and borders are aligned in the Warsaw Pact.
If North Korea joined China last year, it would not be nationalistic to promote the continued union with China, but it would be to promote union with South Korea

 

[AlterEgo]

I've always wondered why Northern Ireland re-joining the Republic to become a "United Ireland" is considered a Nationalist point of view, when technically it's an alternative unionist position. If NI wanted to be outright independent that would definitely be nationalist, but that point of view is very uncommon in the grand scheme of things.

Quite, and what we call “unionism” in Northern Ireland is simply another form of nationalism.

 

[XAM2175]

I've always wondered why Northern Ireland re-joining the Republic to become a "United Ireland" is considered a Nationalist point of view, when technically it's an alternative unionist position. If NI wanted to be outright independent that would definitely be nationalist, but that point of view is very uncommon in the grand scheme of things.

It's nationalist when viewed from the Irish perspective. It can also be referred to as 'republican', while 'loyalist' stands as an alternate to 'unionist'.

British isn't really [a nationality], with Scottish, English and Welsh nationalities existing, hence the term Unionism.

This is incorrect. There are distinct English, Welsh, and Scottish national identities, but at the present time in UK law there is only British nationality.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's nationalist when viewed from the Irish perspective. It can also be referred to as 'republican', while 'loyalist' stands as an alternate to 'unionist'.

“Republican” and “loyalist” have stronger connotations than simply nationalist or unionist. They’re definitely not alternate terms, calling someone a “republican” definitely is different to describing them as a nationalist.

 

[XAM2175]

“Republican” and “loyalist” have stronger connotations than simply nationalist or unionist. They’re definitely not alternate terms, calling someone a “republican” definitely is different to describing them as a nationalist.

Yes, sorry, I shouldn't have made them appear to be direct equivalents.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

This is incorrect. There are distinct English, Welsh, and Scottish national identities, but at the present time in UK law there is only British nationality.

That's only because the United Kingdom arrived 300 years ago before such things had legal distinctions, British Citizenship is an international identity like that of European Union "Nationals" despite that term, other nationalities exist. "British Nationality" applies to many far flung territories, it is not synonymous with United Kingdom people.

 

[Sm5]

Its a pity the Empire didnt consider setting up an Empire Union of sorts, like the EU political structure, thus giving an overall Empire law, legislated by Empire country members and develoved to local governments. The UK would have been a dispute escalation oversight, but not neccessarily a veto or preferential vote.

This international parliament could set laws, whilst giving localised self governance and its own single currency and harmonized tax.
Freedom of movement in that Empire was already there, though migration was managed by the high cost of migrating.

This could have been a considerable market, to counter what became US and EU dominance.

Looking back Empire for its people was a great facilitator of trade and allowing freedom of movement, we gave this up for European movement and now weve given that up to.

The lack of an international body to bring members together and collaborate, rather than the Empiracal body that ruled over subjects is why I think the Empire failed.., ultimately (people want self rule, it was educating to that self awareness that inevitably saw rule questionned).

We have a commonwealth today, but its neither common, nor wealthy and doesnt exactly do anything for trade or law nor even is it a trade group. Its just a friends club for recreation and education.

 

[yorksrob]

Looking back Empire for its people was a great facilitator of trade and allowing freedom of movement

It has to be borne in mind that most Empire citizens couldn't afford to move that far (whether they were free to or not).

 

[Sm5]

It has to be borne in mind that most Empire citizens couldn't afford to move that far (whether they were free to or not).

already noted.

Its a pity the Empire didnt consider setting up an Empire Union of sorts, like the EU political structure, thus giving an overall Empire law, legislated by Empire country members and develoved to local governments. The UK would have been a dispute escalation oversight, but not neccessarily a veto or preferential vote.

This international parliament could set laws, whilst giving localised self governance and its own single currency and harmonized tax.
Freedom of movement in that Empire was already there, though migration was managed by the high cost of migrating.

This could have been a considerable market, to counter what became US and EU dominance.

Looking back Empire for its people was a great facilitator of trade and allowing freedom of movement, we gave this up for European movement and now weve given that up to.

The lack of an international body to bring members together and collaborate, rather than the Empiracal body that ruled over subjects is why I think the Empire failed.., ultimately (people want self rule, it was educating to that self awareness that inevitably saw rule questionned).

We have a commonwealth today, but its neither common, nor wealthy and doesnt exactly do anything for trade or law nor even is it a trade group. Its just a friends club for recreation and education.

 

[adrock1976]

SNIP

It's also extremely likely we will now have both an SF First Minister in Northern Ireland next year and an SF Taoiseach in a few years time (Sinn Fein has just hit a record 37%).

Forgive me here, but I believe that Sinn Fein would have to put a constitutional amendment to its AGM to enable them to take up the post of First Minister in Northern Ireland.

This is due to the present day situation that for any elected representatives to take up their post, they have to pledge allegiance to the monarchy, something which Sinn Fein have been opposed to for a good number of years.

Alternatively, it would be better to get rid of the requirement to pledge allegiance to the monarchy, as it is not the monarch who has employed them to serve, but the constituents.

 

[XAM2175]

That's only because the United Kingdom arrived 300 years ago before such things had legal distinctions, British Citizenship is an international identity like that of European Union "Nationals" despite that term, other nationalities exist. "British Nationality" applies to many far flung territories, it is not synonymous with United Kingdom people.

It kind of is though, because those far-flung territories have close association with the UK and - most importantly - don't have legal citizenships of their own. It has only become a point of distinction because previous British governments have created lesser categories of British nationality in order to remove from some British "citizens" the right to actually live in the UK. There's no prohibition on those places having their own national identities.

You will also of course understand that "EU nationals" is shorthand for "citizens of EU member states" and not a reference to a (non-existent) EU citizenship.

 

[AlterEgo]

Forgive me here, but I believe that Sinn Fein would have to put a constitutional amendment to its AGM to enable them to take up the post of First Minister in Northern Ireland.

No they wouldn't.

This is due to the present day situation that for any elected representatives to take up their post, they have to pledge allegiance to the monarchy, something which Sinn Fein have been opposed to for a good number of years.

The post of First Minister, as well as all elected ministerial and political positions in Northern Ireland, do not require any oath of allegiance to the Queen. Indeed, Sinn Fein have held the joint First Minister post since 2007. The powers and responsibilities of First Minister and deputy First Minister are entirely equal, and the "First Minister" (without the deputy prefix) merely goes to the FM appointed as part of the largest "political designation" in the Executive, which traditionally has been unionist, but which now appears to have the potential of turning to nationalist.

Alternatively, it would be better to get rid of the requirement to pledge allegiance to the monarchy, as it is not the monarch who has employed them to serve, but the constituents.

Yes, that was done as part of the Belfast Agreement which reinstated power-sharing at Stormont.

 

[adrock1976]

No they wouldn't.


The post of First Minister, as well as all elected ministerial and political positions in Northern Ireland, do not require any oath of allegiance to the Queen. Indeed, Sinn Fein have held the joint First Minister post since 2007. The powers and responsibilities of First Minister and deputy First Minister are entirely equal, and the "First Minister" (without the deputy prefix) merely goes to the FM appointed as part of the largest "political designation" in the Executive, which traditionally has been unionist, but which now appears to have the potential of turning to nationalist.


Yes, that was done as part of the Belfast Agreement which reinstated power-sharing at Stormont.

Many thanks for clarifying the NI aspect.

I got myself muddled with the Sinn Fein MPs at Westminster, as they are abstentionist.

It would be good for the MPs in England, Wales, and Scotland to do the same in no longer having to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.

 

[JamesT]

You will also of course understand that "EU nationals" is shorthand for "citizens of EU member states" and not a reference to a (non-existent) EU citizenship.

There is actually such a thing as EU Citizenship. It was created as part of the Maastricht Treaty. Though the criteria for gaining it is to be a citizen of a member state.
There are various legal cases where people are arguing it's unlawful to have their EU Citizenship removed due to Brexit, but as far as I can tell none have made it up to the ECJ for a ruling.

 

[najaB]

It would be good for the MPs in England, Wales, and Scotland to do the same in no longer having to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.

What would you propose as a suitable stand-in for "the United Kingdom" since we don't have a written constitution?

 

[AlterEgo]

What would you propose as a suitable stand-in for "the United Kingdom" since we don't have a written constitution?

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the first ministers’ oaths in the NI Assembly. You can probably remove all the non violent and paramilitary references though!

 

[najaB]

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the first ministers’ oaths in the NI Assembly. You can probably remove all the non violent and paramilitary references though!

I had never seen it before so looked it up. I presume you're referring to this (from the NI Ministerial Code):

1.4. Under the Belfast Agreement and under sections 16, 18 and 19 of the Act, it is a condition of appointment that Ministers of the Northern Ireland Assembly, including the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and junior Ministers, affirm the terms of the following Pledge of Office.

(a) to discharge in good faith all the duties of office;

(b) commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means;

(c) to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to promote equality and prevent discrimination;

(ca) to promote the interests of the whole community represented in the the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future;

(cb) to participate fully in the Executive Committee, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council;

(cc) to observe the joint nature of the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister;

(cd) to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts as set out in paragraph 6 of the St Andrews Agreement;

(ce) to support the rule of law unequivocally in word and deed and to support all efforts to uphold it;

(cf) to work collectively with the other members of the Executive Committee to achieve a society free of paramilitarism;

(cg) to challenge all paramilitary activity and associated criminality;

(ch) to call for, and to work together with the other members of the Executive Committee to achieve, the disbandment of all paramilitary organisations and their structures;

(ci) to challenge paramilitary attempts to control communities;

(cj) to support those who are determined to make the transition away from paramilitarism;

(ck) to accept no authority, direction or control on my political activities other than my democratic mandate alongside my own personal and party judgment;

(d) to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government;

(e) to operate within the framework of that programme when agreed within the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly;

(f) to support, and to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly;

(g) to comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

It's pretty good, but it does lack the "country before all else" that comes with pledging allegiance to a personification of the nation that comes with a monarch or a constitution.

 

[bussnapperwm]

They could always pledge allegiance to the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, i.e. not one specific person in the Monarch but the people as a whole instead.

 

[najaB]

They could always pledge allegiance to the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, i.e. not one specific person in the Monarch but the people as a whole instead.

The problem there is that if some people say "blue and black" and the others say "yellow and white" then "the people" aren't in agreement - how does one remain loyal to both? Does "the people" actually mean "the majority"?