The hazards of breaking the Union
MY understanding of the present situation is that there can only be a referendum in Northern Ireland if a reasonable number of the population or a majority of the political parties call for it.
Extrapolating from recent opinion polls my estimate is that around 70 per cent of the Northern Ireland population are either not opposed to the Union with the UK or clearly for it.
Perhaps the News Letter could give an even more precise figure? Incidentally, if Scotland were to leave the Union could our passports be (re-) entitled “United Kingdom” rather than, at present, “The UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”?
Just a thought for the future and just in case: as the Duke of Edinburgh once observed, the Scots drink so much whiskey that they can’t see what’s in front of them, ie disaster
if they were to leave the UK. Martin McGuinness and Alex Salmond have much in common: they like to play the good oul Dixie tune for breaking up Unions.
Dr David Green,
(Address submitted)
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Belfast
Thursday 24 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 12 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 7 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 12 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 12 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Livonia
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 08:49 PMQuote “Ulsterwoman Monday, February 20, 2012 at 02:48 PM Its not who we came from its who we are now!!” Unquote. Thank you Ulsterwoman. I am glad you agree with me on something. However I will conform only partially. Of course we MUST know where we came from or we will keep repeating all the errors of the past! And therein lies your problem in Northern Ireland. We - you - humankind in general, must get rid of politics in religion, and more critically, religion in politics. Some countries I have lived in do this quite well, while not denying anyone their right to a particular set of faith beliefs. The difference seems to be that in Northern Ireland, (and in Ireland in general) people make their faith so public and practice it so aggressively, (your country is far from alone of course in this peculiar trait), that it becomes some sort of fetish and a harm to others. Faith and personal beliefs should be private and personal, not something to use as a pedestal to elevate yourself to some more “perfect” position than your neighbour so that you can berate him or her for their perceived moral imperfections. You can start this process of removing religion from the running of your country by eliminating from your educational systems all and any religious control and input. Schools should be entirely secular. The curriculum should of course include a study as a historical subject the evolution of religion through the ages. But it should be dispassionate and intelligence based, and a process by which we learn how we went wrong in the past. Religion should be kept to entirely self-funded and completely voluntary institutions well outside the educational system. Your schools might then find time to teach such things as grammar and sentence structure.
MOD
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 05:17 PMWallace. The name means Strathclyde Briton. So Willie was a Brit.
Ulsterwoman
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 02:48 PMIts not who we came from its who we are now!!
Livonia
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 10:40 PMQuote “Ulsterwoman Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM Laphonia: Bruce, Wallace were just pretending there were battles with the English to free their country?” Unquote. My Dear Ulsterwoman, I am pleased you know something of The Bruce (De Bruis actually – he was of Norman extraction) and of William Wallace. I have stood in that remote spot in the Galloway hills where he committed his first “act of terrorism” (according to the English and their Scots allies - who were peeved that his little army of stone-throwers was composed mainly of Irish mercenaries). I have visited the original site of Greyfriars Church in Dumfries where he stabbed the Red Comyn to death (Comyn was believed to have had a better claim to the Scottish throne than Bruce). I have looked at that massive sword said to be the weapon of choice of Wallace. I once could recite from memory the (short version) of the Declaration of Arbroath. And I thought of the Scots as being the forebears of my maternal family. But none of that put clothes on my children or fed them when they were hungry. The Scots, some of whom are unaware of the origin (or unbelievably, even the meaning), of the words “Scot’s Wha Hae’” should think before they become too insular. I work with and among many of Scots blood who are proud of their roots but are aware that “independence” is not a good idea. Unfortunately they are part of the world-wide diaspora and therefore do not have a vote.
Livonia
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 12:40 PMExactly Ulsterwoman. Bruce and Wallace and others denied the various English monarchs the pleasure of taking Scotland "by force". However it was eventually joined to England for political convenience, by political events, and through the willingness of very many Scotsmen to see it so. There are potential parallels in your country. If we are candid we will see that the Act of Union of 1707 was probably the best arrangement for both countries at the time. Scotland was virtually bankrupt due to the ill-fated adventure we call the Darien Scheme. Two countries of hard-working people then came together and, with the Irish and Welsh, forged a mighty Empire. Was that Union wrong? Should the two countries now go separate ways? I believe neither country will benefit by becoming independent of one another. Isolationism will not work in the 21st century. At a place called Spean Bridge in a remote part of Scotland is a statue depicting three "commandos" of WW2. This, as you no doubt know, commemorates the very brave men of many nationalities (and religious faiths), who received their training in that area before being sent to war to defeat Nazism. The words on the plinth say "United we Conquer". The unwritten words are of course "if we divide we fall".
Ulsterwoman
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 11:57 AMLaphonia: Bruce, Wallace were just pretending there were battles with the English to free their country? Probably misguided? What did Wallace say about freedom? Why do the SNP stand for a independent country? Why did the Scottish majority vote them into power? Questions? Questions? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Livonia
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 09:10 PMCould I politely point out Topperharvey that England never took Scotland “by force”. The United Kingdom was formed when a Scots King was invited by the English in 1603 to become their king too. When he accepted he became no longer James VI of Scotland but James I of the United Kingdom of England and Scotland. In 1707 the Acts of Union, a peaceful agreement, developed out of the failure of the Scots to make a success of the Darien Scheme (an attempt by Scotland to become a financial empire in its own right). Culloden, that battle which is so often seen as a Scots – English conflict saw almost as many Scotsmen fighting against the Jacobites as were for them. It was more of a fight between certain Scots nobility of the time and the followers of Bonnie Prince Charlie. The aftermath of Culloden is often blamed on the English but intelligent research shows that the Scottish nobility and their agents were the greatest persecutors of their countrymen. Scots landowners like Ross, McLeod, McDonnell, Sutherland , and others of power and wealth, were among those who were most diligent in the persecution of their poorer countrymen. The “English”, when they were involved, merely rubber-stamped such policies. During the previous century the poorer English had similarly been affected by the various Enclosures Acts. Life, and history, Topperharvey, is not simple – we must stop shouting “he hit me first”.
Topperharvey
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 06:02 PMWas it a disaster when England took Scotland by armed force? The Scottish people will decide after all it is their country not ours!
belfastview
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 11:01 PMThe Scots are not dumb and are entitled to have their say respected. The Scots are people too. David is obviously pretty anti-Scottish.
Britannia
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 12:24 PMDM - There is an old saying 'that it is better for one to keep silent, so that others may think one is an idiot, that to open ones mouth and remove all doubt'. I suggest that it might be wise for you to take that advice old bean.
DM
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 11:30 AMCan 'Dr' David Green tell us what 'disaster' will befall Scotland if it becomes independent?? Much like the 'disaster' that has befallen Norway since it became independent from Sweden, and is now an impoverished state, but happens to be the richest in the world. And also, if you are talking about whisky in the Scottish context, mention it by its real name - whisky rather than whiskey. Indeed, I would have thought any self respecting NI unionist and especially an 'ulster-scots' heritage would want to use the Scottish and English spelling - whisky, instead of the Irish - whiskey. So David Green has contradicted himself and lessened his unionist credentials!!
DM
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 10:43 AMSo if 70% of NI's population are for or at least not against the 'union', that leaves a very sizeable 30% who are in favour of reunification. Despite all unionists crowing that 'the union is secure', 'the union is secure', the edginess, irritation and even fear that is now being show by unionists in NI of all stripes following the success of the SNP and the talent of Alex Salmond is palpable. This is surely the beginning of the end of NI's 'union' with Britain, and the rightful union with the rest of Ireland.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.