The Irish Question and the Ulster Question: Then and Now
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 11. 2022
- Britain before 1914 was convulsed by the Irish Question. Since the Act of Union of 1800, Ireland had been governed without the consent of the vast majority of Irish Catholics, who comprised around 3/4 of the population. Home Rule was the suggested solution. But there was a second question, the Ulster Question arising from the presence of a large Protestant minority in the north east of Ireland, who rejected rule from Dublin.
This lecture asks whether better answers are available today.
A lecture by Vernon Bogdanor FBA CBE
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/i...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
Excellent lecture. India also had insights from the Irish Question with two options: Home Rule, and Independence. India was partitioned like Ireland on the principle of religion. Partition was integral part of the British Empire and it fell by that curse. The English were more concerned about their religion rather than nationality.
Partition of India was unavoidable The Irish partition was avoidable.
This is a decidedly Indian perspective, there was an islamic view on partition which meant it was all that could happen. Partition was also very late, a decentralised India probably would have assuaged most fears but socialism got in the way.
its got nothing to do with relgion its freedom vs imperialism, unionists position is similar to white south africans
18:40
"Ulster(Protestants), unlike the nationalists(Catholics), was not asking for a privilege - the privilege of a
separate legislature within the United Kingdom. All that the Ulster Unionists were arguing for was the
maintenance of their existing constitutional position."
This is because Catholics(nationalists) were heavily discriminated against. The Protestant(unionists) were privileged.
When Ireland became Independent the discrimination of the Catholics continued in Northern Ireland which led to the Civil rights movement and the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland.
Absolutely, Britain had 50 years before the troubles to make Ulster a fair and equitable country but allowed the Protestants to run an apartheid style regime.
Listen to Sammy Wilson or any other of the Unionist nasties and tell me if you want to be in a country with people like him. They got their Brexit, now stew in it.
Ulster Protestants ( or more accurately, their upper class) didn't need to ask for any privileges- they already had them, lock, stock & barrel, nationalists (as the name implies) were looking for freedom from 800 yrs of institutionalised racist discrimination and violent oppression.
Presbyterians and Methodists, the bulk of protestants in Ulster, were also subject to penal laws and were not part of the protestant ascendancy. Which is why they decided to join with the irish and lead a rebellion like they had done in America a few years earlier. In the failed uprising the irish killed many protestant men, women and children rather than fight for freedom, the Scullabogue massacre being a prime example. That more than anything else cemented Ulster's determination to avoid Dublin rule at any cost.
@@asanulsterman1025
Where exactly are you getting these sources from? Because of what I know of Irish history from a British perspective, it was Protestants who started the Nationalist movement. Ulster-Scot "dissenters" rallied in droves, alongside Catholics and some Anglicans, to the banner of the United Irishmen. For research purposes, can you provide the source of where you got this information from? I want to study more about my own shared history with Ireland.
@@asanulsterman1025
So, I looked up multiple sources on the 1798 rebellion, and I could not find a shred of evidence of where you claim that the Irish turned on their own united Irishmen (Ulster Scot Presbyterians) in the fight for Irish freedom. What I did find, however, was who started Irish nationalism. It was your own ancestors (Presbyterian Protestants) who mainly founded the United Irishmen in Belfast in 1791. And by the way, I've looked this up in both British and Irish sources when doing my research. If there's anyone you have to blame for Irish nationalism, it's your own people.
It's not the "Irish question" it's the English question, England put the border in Ireland they created the problem. The act of union 1801 had nothing whatsoever to do with the vast majority of the Irish people, Catholics were denied their right to vote in their own country so Ireland at that time has a Protestant only government and Protestants were in a small minority, so the 1801 act of union was against the wishes of the majority of the Irish people.
Ulster Scots have been brainwashed.
I've watch practically all Gresham College's Bogdanor lectures. They are masterpieces. It worries me that this command of subject matter, penetrating insight and interpretive virtuosity is vanishing from academia and the broader serious culture of ideas. I have great gratitude toward Gresham College for making these lectures, which demonstrate the great triumphs of which the human intellectual is capable, available to the public.
Overall interesting and fair albeit from an English perspective regarding what is a complex and emotive issue. Ireland does not have any doubts about the possibility of violent and fanatical opposition to reunification from both the Organised crime groups and the Presbyterian religious fundamentalists. Time, geography and Anglo Irish co-operation will ease the passage towards re-unification which does not have to involve painting all the post boxes green overnight. Rational Unionist and Loyalists will be aware that Ireland already offers legal protection and recognised status to minority groups such as Irish Traveller's and have no need to fear persecution of any kind. However "When one is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression," and it will take a generation or two yet for those with a fond memory for Protestant ascendancy to fully accept they are no more special than anyone else.
That the Travellers have minority recognition (or need it) says much about their historical status. As for the Unionist, it will take more than 2 generations to forget about the sectarian violence of the PIRA. The 1922 settlement that partitioned Ireland didn’t really satisfy anyone but the problems that generated it haven’t gone away. There is still little trust between many in the two communities in Northern Ireland and its divergence culturally from the South over the last 100 years had exacerbated that. There is a growing identification as Northern Irish (distinct from either Irish or British.
@@Denis.Collins I agree and admit that the perspective was at least in part driven by the source material.
There is no instrument of compulsion "Unionists in Ireland, they have to be made to feel they are an ordinary and accepted part of the island." You can take the horse to the water but you can't make it drink.
Those advocating reunification are calling for dialogue between stakeholders to define what re-unification will entail. This whilst the political face of unionism refuses to engage with the democratic process as the Brexit they were such champions of and so disproportionately instrumental in shaping has failed to result in the restoration of a land border.
@@des1029The Official
Irish Republican Army and The Provisional Irish Republican Army were politically justified in their Military Actions in the
North of Ireland. They are the legitimate armies of the
Irish Republic 1916; and the lawful Descendents of the
Irish Republican Brotherhood.
Vernon Bogdanor has lovely hair! Love the way he constantly flicks it back from his brow! 😊
Britain has never been comfortable governing Ireland? No matter how Britain might feel, only a subservient fool or rich individual would feel comfortable being governed by Britain.
Winston Churchill said “ the odd thing about the Irish is they refuse to be English”
One of the kinder things that racist said
@@ianmac3648 ah yeah he was up he’s own hole allright
@@eibhlinni3598 More than two score and five years have passed since I left my native shore. the passage of time however long or short does nothing to dimish my love of my native shore, it's people and it's language. I concede that in the depths of time away I may grow more sentimental and have a less than realistic feel for a country that is very different than the one I left. There are many things I will forever miss about Ireland .. broadly speaking it's people and still with speaking the spakes of what is said. The unique flavour and irreverence that slides off the tongue of the Irish with such ease is an irreplacable loss for me. Occassionally, I find something in what i'm reading or something in social media that alerts me to 'there might be something 'rare comin' here now'. Your comment today .. is one of the best I've seen in a long long time. Forgive me for being so long winded in my reply but in an effor to set your 'spake' within something flowery was irresistalbe. Go raibh mile maith agat. On landing on a foreign shore all that time ago .. I made a pact with myself that I would try to remember to say something 'as Gaelige - gach la'. And i think for the most part I have lived up to that. I'm always delighted to puff out my chest when someone announces that I still have a fair bit of d'oul language still. Slan .. and keep 'em coming. 💚
"the english think the irish odd because they do not want to be english"
@@ianmac3648 Churchill decided your fate . no Churchill . no Ian Mac ..or me
The U.K. doesn’t financially subsidise Northern Ireland. It’s Great Britain that does that….
Wonderful expose of Irish British relationships and English mentality .
Ulster Unionists Loyalists seige mentality.
Excellent speech. Lots of contextual history that helps frame the present.
How about the English question in Ireland, i.e. when are they leaving?
"Some say deporting people of Unionist belief is a form of genocide; in my opinion they have a country, that country is England and I would be most happy for them to reside there, not interfering with Irish affairs North or South of the unjust border of Ireland, we must not put up with their continuous invasion and occupation of our land. I did not fight and see my brothers die for them to soil* this State. I do not advocate an armed invasion of our stolen land but unless by 2016 we have our six counties I would feel it to be a must."
Seán Lemass, later Taoiseach (1959 - 1966) and successor to fellow Fianna Fáil founder Éamon de Valera, on unionists in Ireland in 1932.
* In Ireland “soil” was (is?) a polite word for dirt or in some cases excrement. He did not say they were dirt merely implying their presence was fouling Ireland.
@@freebeerfordworkers That quote is unpleasant but nowhere in it does Lemass advocate the killing or deportation of any people based on ethnicity or religion. He does so on the basis of political belief and allegiance to what to him would have been a foreign power. Lemass is not even a Gaelic name; the man born John Lemass and known as Jack to his childhood friends and colleagues was descended from Huguenot immigrants and he fought along Irish nationalists of all religious beliefs and none, as well as differing ethnic backgrounds, including his close colleague Robert Briscoe, the son of Lithuanian immigrant Jews. Stick to topics you understand.
i'm a proud Englishman but I agree wit you 100% !! i don't get what's wrong with the so called 'loyalists', what are they afraid of? we English would LOVE a united Ireland (and an independent Scotland) we would be richer and SO much happier
@@zachsmith5515 You assume Northern Ireland wouldn't eventually become more profitable and richer just like the Republic did. You assume wrong.
Wohoo! Happy that Professor Bogdanor has returned with a new lecture.
There is no Irish question or Ulster question. It's simply a problem caused by Britain.
We should be able to make our own laws on the island
How is there not a question they want to stay for now with the uk
Ulster need only a democratic vote through a referendum to decide the issue and they have a framework so to do. Unfortunatley Scots dont.
@@josephhenry4725 I bet you're a brit who doesn't realise that nearly 40% of ulster is in the irish republic,
There is NO irish question, and the only problem is the British problem, who continue to interfere in the Six Counties, which were stolen from the rest of country, IRELAND is a 32-county island. not in any way, shape or form a part of the UK. The British colonised Ireland, and the ONLY tactics which brought about any change was the actions of those, who by force, took the WAR to Mainland Britain, and hit them on the streets of Perfidious Albion.
Ulster is and always has been part of Ireland the part that the unionists refer to as Ulster is only 6 counties of the 9.
Very true and what the Irish Nationalist Government in Dublin calls Ireland is only 26 counties out of 32
It is not Britain's "Irish Question", it is Ireland's British question.
The border was never intended to be permanent.
No, it's not Ireland's British question and we in Ulster always intended our border to be permanent, as it is.
@@asanulsterman1025 Ireland made it permanent. It was Ireland who proposed that the border should remain as a permanent fixture in return for release from sovereign debt, and Britain agreed. The idea Ireland had no part to play is risible.
@@asanulsterman1025 go home Brit if you hate Ireland so much.
@@asanulsterman1025 if you can't even adsorb the fact that ulster is 1 third in the south there is literally no hope for you.
@@paulgallagher6482 Are you one of these people who refer to the Republic of Ireland as Ireland. Don't you realise ROI is only part of Ireland? Does it upset you to hear people saying Ireland when they mean ROI in the same as when you hear Ulster used to describe the other country on the island of Ireland?. Grow up mawkish boy.
This has been an education and made the housework a lot more interesting 👍🐢
Excellent lecture, lucid and concise.
But text book. It was wrong like Islamic now to allow one faith to dominate whole country
A great lecture. I must be doing something right for the youtube algorithm to suggest it. The idea of pro Unionist and anti Home Rule British Army officers inspired by the Sandhurst curriculum to identify themselves as the equivalent of the unionist side on the American civil war is remarkable and not something I had come across before.
They weren't inspired by the Sandhurst curriculum a lot of them were Irish including some of the most senior generals. I appreciate that from the 1920s onwards they were reclassified as Anglo Irish meaning not really Irish but before then you could be Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Nationalist, Home Rule, even republican but they were all Irish
@@freebeerfordworkers it’s more complicated than you are inferring but glad someone wants to further the reductionist fluff that governments perpetuated north and south for their own convenience.
Irish and British identities can and have been much more muddied and that fact has been acknowledged or maybe passed over by many on both sides long after 1920
@@beaglaoich4418 Very true I would repeat my post from elsewhere on this thread;
Following the treaty in 1922 the British government expelled just over 100 members of the Irish community who they believed had been involved in the recent troubles or war of independence. With the help of members of parliament and lawyers they fought the orders and over 90% of them were allowed to return or stay. Some received compensation about £1000 - worth at least 20 times that amount today.
I think you would agree very muddled indeed.
Never heard of a place called London Derry
First 6 letters are silent
I lived for several years in DoireLondain, capital of Ríocht na Sasainn. Pardon me if I continue to refer to it in my peculiar way...
@@johnmckiernan2176 Londún might be a better translation since 'London' is an old Celtic name, Dún meaning Fort.
I'm sorry but you are typically wrong in your interpretation of the conflict in the six-counties. You say the conflict was begun with the Provisional IRA "terrorism". This is a horrendous British distortion of the facts. The conflict began with the invasion by the British army into the nationalist areas, which had removed the sectarian RUC and Unionist forces and had erected barricades to prevent them from returning. The British army occupation, which was initially presented in the media and elsewhere as as "protecting the people", soon revealed what it had done everywhere else in the world; it began a campaign of brutality, maiming and killing, particularly in Belfast and Derry. The IRA, of which there were two distinct bodies, the Officials and the Provisionals, responded to British military brutality with a military response. This is the historical fact. A fact that all British accounts attempt to alter and reverse the order of events so as to somehow show the British in Ireland as as preventing violence, when in fact it is the British who are the instigators and the source of oppression and violence in Ireland as in every other colony it governed. But you cannot ever accept this truth and this lecture is, I'm sorry to say, just another falsification of history from a British perspective.
More accurately, the conflict started with unionist hate gangs attacking Catholic neighbourhoods and RIC crackdowns on civil rights protests. This lead to Catholic neighbourhood defense groups organising, which would eventually go on to be the provos. The conflict had already started by the time the army arrived, the army just militarised it. Its often forgotten that neither the IRA nor the British army were the instigators of the troubles, but rather ulster unionists.
Yes i would agree with your more detailed account. But in terms of the military conflict, my point is that the military conflict , the war, began with the British army invasions which transformed the situation into the military conflict. I think this is a fundamental point which the British narrative always falsifies. It's also a fact now the Irish political class, liberal elite and academic establishment, have entirely adopted the British narrative. I have made the point earlier; the national question is not over, not until a complete British withdrawal from Ireland, and their narrative is a statement of their intent to remain in control of Ireland. I used this quote from George Orwell: "Who controls the past controls the future". @@shanecoleman5952
When you break up with a nasty spoilt girlfriend and she scratches your car, you realise you made the correct decision ..lol
loyalist violence don't make me laugh, they are toothless tigers without the British governments help as operation banner proved ..
The real interesting dynamic not mentioned here is what will the loyalist do when King Charles tells them he loves Ireland and the Irish people and continues to visit the beautiful people of the republic of Ireland more than NI which is currently the case
...
When I lived and worked in London it amused me no end to hear Londoners reminding northern unionists that “you ain’t British. You’re Irish” the unionist faces truly turned orange.
Very clear lecture.
I believe for to try to understand the History of Ulster, you must start at the Flight of the Earls 1607, and then the following Lowlands Scott's Plantation to Ireland later on in this Century.
However I firmly believe that this six County Colony is now in its final years of existence .
Colonisation only ever has a certain shelf life, as History has taught us.
and a completely illegitimate claim over our land
What an idiotic notion - the Irish themselves are mere Celt colonists from France, and Scotland exists because of Irish colonisation, wiping out the Picts.
An enjoyable lecture. Some more explanation about the more distant past pre-plantation past would be helpful. Thank you.
there's a bunch of Irish history videos available here on YT, depends on your particular interests.
@@EireFirst1916 ‘
Just as today Alastair plantations were European refugees who fled the perescution Catholic wars all over Europe to UK and Ireland at that time all under King n Crown UK.. So no the ppl were in those days those terms free to settle and they brought advanced farming n industry's with them.. Has Ireland not suffered own 2022 plantation by Migrancy many of whom have no skills and poor contributions.
@@joprocter4573 you spelt ethnic cleansing wrong - its not 'settle'
There was no Irish parliament in 1801.
The first Irish parliament sat in 1919.
Splitting hairs
Grattan’s parliament was whether you like it or not, an Irish parliament (albeit a purely Protestant one).
@@coc_is_me 'Church of Ireland' (Anglican) parliament; Shut down by Westminster in 1801. Presbyterians, Baptist, and others, were discriminated against, as with the Roman Catholics.
At least that's what gather from 18th - 19th century Irish political history.
Irish Parliament by Grattan was Irish Protestant Parliament for Anglicans
@@user-cx5pl2tu2h sorry - you are absolutely right. "Dissenters" need not have applied either.
Some fun observations; if the Scots and Welsh are happy to identify as such, including British, why can't Ulster Protestants call themselves Irish? If the Scots, and especially the Welsh, are proud of their respective languages, why does NI oppose the use of Irish? why does the British Olympic team call itself "Team GB", thereby excluding Northern Ireland, why is it not "Team UK"? Why was Brexit called "Brexit" and not "Ukexit"? The British claim that the UK is made up of "Four Countries". But NI is not a country, never has been. Nor is it a "nation". When the Soviet Union broke up, the former countries, including Russia, ceased to use former USSR insignia on there flags etc. Once Ireland became independent, why does the UK continue to use Irish insignia, ie the harp and shamrock on the royal coat of arms etc.? Why does the UK continue to keep the Cross of St Patrick on the union flag? If thousands of Irish settled in Britain, and for the most part, happily integrated, why can't the "British" in NI do the same in Ireland? Thousands of British ( people actually born in Britain) are now moving to Ireland (Republic) and seem to get on with everyone, why can't the "British" in NI do the same? If thousands of Northern Irish Protestants have gone to the US and Canada and NZ and become Americans, Canadians and New Zealanders, why can't they become Irish? If Ulster Protestants are so proud to be "British" how come so many of them now have Irish passports?
Great post, have an uptick!!
Amazing!! you never used the words neanderthal or bigot once
Because if the Scottish and Welsh would want their own country back Ulster can't call it themselves Irish. That is going to the crux when Scotland wants to part... It will become a mess because it would be a reunification of Ireland.
It's the curse of Humanity reiligion & bigotry when English and Scottish Protestant were granted. the lands of the O'Neil's & O"Donnell's & their friend's
we're granted to Scottish Northern English settlers.
The founding of the Orange Order set the dìe.
. . ?
Loads of excellent questions.....as the son of Irish parents who moved to England during WW2, I have a very personal interest in these issues. My mother always retained her family links to Co Kerry, but both she and her sister candidly admitted how much they hated their rural life in the 1930s. Somehow even life as nursing trainees in 1940s London with visits from the Luftwaffe was an improvement. It is another aspect of the complex relationship between the two islands. Life in Protestant England was materially better.
I still wonder how the UK could walk away from the sub-continent and sail away from Hong Kong with little regret (publicly at least) is willing to spend treasure to hang on to a bit of land that does not pay its' own way.
You don’t recall Chris Patten, former HK governor, watching the Union Jack replaced by the CCP butcher’s apron? You don’t remember the tears in his eyes? I was younger, I was struck and puzzled by the tears, did not understand their provenance. You imagine some British alternative at the end of the 99 year lease? You think we could have held on to HK with some Gurkhas against the PLA?
@@actionflower6706 Sir: You have seen my argument! No war with 700 million Hindus and Muslims and certainly not with the PLA. However, where we can hold onto a statelet of our creation against unorganized civilians while never allowing the residents of Ireland work it out on their own then there we stand! Talk about picking your fights! Irony or cynicism?
@@martinsmith2786 In 1969 “ letting the residents of Ireland work it out on their own” might have meant letting the Protestant loyalists win an existential fight to the death, ex Yugoslavia style. Or, in the event of intervention by Eire, lose maybe. If ( in that hypothetical) Eire DID intervene, it would be intervening why? To stop an horrific slaughter in NI that Westminister had walked away from ….because…( this is the bit I struggle to imagine)….we had somehow decided that the rule of law and police protection does not apply to those British passport holders and citizens who have funny accents? Eire, remember, after 1920, fought a counter insurgency war against the IRA and won. Victory was signified by the hanging of IRA commanders by Eire after due process of Eire law. Whhhhich is exactly what Westminister did to IRA commanders in Dublin after the Easter rising. I say “IRA”, I get my reals, my provisionals, my continuities, my INLAs etc all mixed up. Liverpool does not pay its own way either. Shall we fence it off and turn it into a Bantustan? No let’s not eh. We are a democracy of civilised people like any other. We don’t DO that sxxt.
@@actionflower6706 Did they not do the same when they 'abandoned' the sub- continent? How many British passport holders were left behind in Hong Kong? Many Irish Americans especially during the 'troubles' proclaimed a slogan: 26 and 6 = 1. There is no chance for peace on the Emerald Isle until England packs its' collective kit and goes back across the sea.
@@martinsmith2786 Yes, you are quite right comrade. Next time a nail bomber is upset and wants something I shall just go ahead and direct him to YOU to get what he wants. I am sure it will work out fine.
as someone else here wrote '...it is not Britain's "Irish Question", it is, and has always been, Ireland's British question. Britain has been a thorn in Ireland's 'backside for 100's of years!!
Brexit proved that, that still...in the 21st Cent. too many, far too many 'English' still don't 'get' Ireland, and the gulf there is, between its culture, its ways of thinking & looking at the wider world. So ironic, that today it appears to many that it is Ireland that is the more 'Liberal, more democratic and socially cohesive, and now certainly more economically strong than its nearest neighbour.
Superb lecture. Thank you very much.
The majority in Ulster are European and Irish, 7 out of the9 counties and Belfast city, the last two counties might be better off economically with the Dail Erinn .
It is not. Read my objections to it in the comments I posted yesterday.
"The one and only conspicuous failure of the political genius of our race" layers and layers of hubris and self delusion.
That's Gladstone.
That was Brilliant
It is notable that the Irish Free State came into existence immediately after the First World War, in which the UK and France had fought as allies, so the idea of the French using Ireland as a stepping stone for an attack on England had become bizarre. England had given Ireland its own parliament in the 18th century, following the loss of the American colonies, but after the 1798 Rebellion, when only the vagaries of the weather prevented substantial numbers of French troops landing in Ireland, that self rule was abandoned and Ireland was incorporated into the UK. This indicates that the purpose of English control of Ireland was not a desire to rule the place but a desire to secure it against forces hostile to England.
Yeah they creating sectarain havoc in Ulster especially Northern Ireland we still trying get rid of to this day since 1609.
Excellent lecture, anyone who can make Ulster Unionists seem almost rational is a genius.
I know very many NI unionists who are very reasonable people & I say that as a Scottish nationalist.
In what way are they not rational?
@@jmccullough662
Many is their largest party, the DUP, believe the earth is 5,000 years old for one. There’s ties between Unionism and the Evangelical right in America. Ian Paisley accepted an honorary doctorate from an unaccredited southern American Bible college that disallowed unmarried black men from attending until the mid-80’s to prevent race mixing and lost said lawsuit. I’m not an Irish or British citizen but I wrote my dissertation in undergrad about the influences America had on the Troubles, both on the Protestant and Catholic side. My irl name is really Irish, so I saw a few just stop speaking to me when they heard it when I was there. Idk racism and bigotry are inherently irrational to me.
@@KeithWilliamMacHendry You can't reason with "NEVER"!
Well see, that’s the problem with putting bombs in pubs and shopping centres. It makes people hostile and intransigent. Who would have guessed eh?
Beginning the talk with a quote describing Ireland as Brian's only political failure just oozes of ignorance
And also exceptionalism-we’re so smart that we’ve only ever had one pesky problem go wrong
It's not fair to blame Brian for everything
Remember they murdered all those Australian Aboriginals and, when in charge of the 13 colonies, those Native Americans? That was all success. As was when their backsides were handed to them at Dunkirk, at Hong Kong, at Singapore, and at Suez, as was the final, crushing defeat of the Taliban regime. Ahem.
Dude, I don't think for a moment that Bogdanor is endorsing the sentiment. Just listen to some of his other lectures or read some of his work - plenty of talk of huge failures of British governance. I think his point is more in line with your own, actually - he's saying even the most unbearably smug, conceited members of the British ruling class could see they'd failed abysmally when it came to Ireland.
Irish unity it's the only solution for Brexit!
Fantastic lecture!
The irony of loyalist attachment to Scotland is that this name literally means "land of the Irish". It was first documented by the Romans in late 3rd, early 4th century in their records of provinces and territories within and bordering the Empire.
The classical name for Scotland was Alba (see independence movement), but the spread of Gaelic culture and language from west to east in Scotland/Alba between the 7th and 9th centuries led to the merging of Gaels, Vikings, Picts and lowland Scots (a mixed group of Britons, Northmen, English) and the cleaving of the old sea route between north eastern Ireland and south western Scotland/Alba by the Vikings in the 9th/10th century led to the political parting of Ireland & Scotland/Alba.
You are kinda on the right track but the Scoti in Scotland were Ulstermen. Scotland came from the Ulster kingdom of Dalriada.
@@asanulsterman1025 True... but the word Ulster comes from the tribe or clan Ulaidh, plus the suffix "ster" which is an old Gaelic word for province. That province was mainly in the northeast, with land west of Lough Neagh being mainly Tír Eoghain, or Tyrone, the land of the Northern Uí Néill. Both the Ulaidh and the Uí Néill were constituent parts of what we now call Ireland (the whole island). That's how Alypius and other Roman writers documented it. Ireland was never a single cohesive political entity, though successive provincial kings claimed "high-kingship" over the whole island. Similarly, England was not a single entity until Aethelstan in the mid-10th century.
Having said that, when Dál Riada established their presence in Western Scotland (with Christianity being a major driver... e.g. Iona) during the 6th and 7th centuries, there is no record of a high-king claiming authority over the lands across the North Channel. It also seems reasonably well document from the early 9th century that "Ireland" was called Scotia Maior and "Scotland" was called Scotia Minor in documents from the Holy Roman Empire.
The sources are of course ancient, often conflicting and open to interpretation. My understanding is that "Scotland" began to be used to describe the whole country after Kenneth MacAlpine / Cinéad MacAlpín of Dál Riada conquered the Pictish territory in the mid 9th century, and as the Vikings continued to re-write European sea routes and borders, that term became common to those outside Scotland, whereas the locals used "Alba" until the lowland Scottish kings adopted English as the court language at the end of the 15th / start of the 16th century.
@@willhqAUS Never heard the Scotia Major and Scotia Minor bit before, sounds unreliable.
The term Scotland comes in much later than Kenneth MacAlpin, his unified kingdom was called Alba. Scotland appeared in the 12th century after Strathclyde and Lothian were absorbed.
Did you know that the ancient Greeks referred to the big 2 islands in the British Isles as Great Britain and Little Britain (aka Ireland)?
@@asanulsterman1025 I hadn't come across the Great/Little Britain references. Makes sense in context. The Greeks, or Phoenicians perhaps, certainly explored west of the Pillars of Hercules before the Romans established the Mare Nostrum. Without checking references I can only imagine that whichever explorer ventured that far north would not have been interested in the subtleties of p-celtic and q-celtic or how these barbarians would have referred to their homelands.
Which brings me, digressing, to the origin of the more common Roman name for Ireland... Hibernia. There seems to be widespread acceptance that this means Land of Winter, given the Roman word for that season. However, I have seen suggestions that it was a derivation of Eibher, one of the mythical progenitors of the Irish. I wonder if you have any knowledge of this one?
And, of course, that brings me to Caledonia. I have not come across the origins of that name for Scotland... any info?
Interesting discussion this... I appreciate your comments and insights.
@@willhqAUS Hivers from greek winter also means to fatten or fattening. And you should see the state our waistlines now!
The makeup of the Royal Irish Constabulary was largely representative of the religious makeup of Ireland. Protestants were only over represented in the Senior Officers positions.
The British have been noting that they know nothing about Ireland for centuries.
The problem is that they do nothing about it but continue to try to govern it (or part of it) in line with the wisdom of the average Surrey voter.
14:20 while I agree about the interchangeability of characterisations Catholic/nationalist and Protestant/unionist, I completely disagree that the conflict of nationhood was a superimposition on the conflict of religion. I think from the Irish point of view thats the other way around. From the Irish point of view it was always about nationhood, and this is evidenced by the number or prominent protestant Irish nationalists.
I think adding the religious point of contention was English opposition to any manifestation of Ireland as a separate nation. We can see an example of this during the famine when Irish catholics were offered soup in exchange for conversion to Church of Ireland or attending a church service.
Religion was the excuse for avarice and basic colonial theft. Simple as.
Wrong title , ireland has an england problem : the english question
well yeah in that England has a problem called 'Ireland' or better still 'Ulster'. we English would LOVE a united Ireland (and an independent Scotland)
"the Famine of the 1840s..." It was a Genocide sir.
Brilliant lecture. I wish I could discern a way forward. ☘️🇮🇪
A united Ireland looks more likely than not during the next 10-15 years. The only improbable alternative would be a Unionist microstate straddling only the north eastern coastline of Northern Ireland, with around 80 percent of the province reverting to the Irish Republic. The southern English rulers of the UK at Westminster are largely indifferent to the continued and heavily Anglo funded existence of Northern Ireland. The USA and EU in effect wish for a united Ireland. The likely next UK government will be led by Labour and will support a unified Ireland. Added to all that the Irish republic is now much wealthier than Northern Ireland. Therefore an all Ireland union within the EU could bring major economic benefits to the Ulster people, including Protestants.
Nope.... polls in Eire are very clear. The Southern population do not want to step in and replace Westminster’s subvention to Stormont and Northern Ireland. Eire does not have the economic strength to do that. Also, given that Belfast is still covered in ‘peace walls’ the population in Northern Ireland is not stable enough for the Constitutional upheaval of reunification.
@@des1029 the (£9b) subvention is an interesting case as there are elements that would most likely substantially reduce the figure.
Trident, UK national debt and UK civil servants pensions wouldn’t be realistic costs for the potential union of Ireland to pay for.
This would drop the figure to as low as £3b/€4b.
This is still a very sizeable amount but not as large as the headline figure has often been cited at
@@des1029
Take ur pills 💊 😔 🙄 😒 🤣 😤 💊 😔 🙄 😒 laddy 👦 boy.!!!
@@bennyreed2900 nice to see you taking such an erudite and well informed position. I can’t imagine how we’d cope without your musings on the complexity of Irish politics. I can see you are functionally literate so I’ll reflect on a previous point about the poverty of the education system, you do seem to encapsulate its essential shortcomings so adequately.
@@des1029 hey, don't speak for me PLANTER.
I'm from Dublin and support reunification.
And your failed argument of affordability is exactly that, failed!
Ireland can very much afford the north and it's been widely proven by economists. Have you not done any research? Afraid to?
Firstly, the island is becoming one economically speaking with trade now booming between north and south - this makes reunification much easier.
The north's annual subsidy from Britain is around the 9 billion pound mark, however, not all of this would carry over into Ireland. Economists estimated it to be approximately 2 or 3 billion pounds instead and would merely result in a minimal pick-up by Irish citizens (it's short-term and manageable).
Also, you're forgetting we'd be benefitting from the north's resources, too! Trade is already huge right now and also tourism, don't forget 💚
Another thing is there are already Irish companies working both side of the imaginary border. Are you forgetting that we supply your electricity 😏 Irish energy company Viridian owns electricity and gas supplier Energia, two power plants in Dublin and PowerNI in the North.
Also, agriculturally, Cavan-based Lakeland Dairies is the island’s second largest dairy co-op and works both sides of the imaginary border.
Resources will spill over between north and south creating an economic balance.
It won't be perfect or plain sailing, but who said it would be?
At the end of the day, the people of the north voted to remain in the EU. Young people want that and young people want change.
Britain isn't viable anymore and its GDP is decreasing. The Scots will get independence as the movement is growing. The Union is breaking up.
The Tories don't give a rats about you all. You cost too much for them and they don't get back. Public spending on services is often higher in the north than other parts of the UK.
The north is only doing better now thanks to the protocol and its vote away from Brexit.
Blame it all on Westminster, pal 👍
It's really the English question. Westminster always puts the onus on others by calling things the Irish question or even the European problem. I'm sure that the first afghan war was called an afghan problem. WHAT ABOUT THE ENGLISH QUESTION ?
Does anyone know if this lecture was a one-off, or the first in a new series?
Don’t know.
I am surprised that the execution of the 1916 leaders was not mentioned. It is the received wisdom in Ireland that that decision, as well as Gallipoli and the western front, swayed public support towards Sinn féin and away from the IPP. That change precipitated the rebellion. I thought the lecture was excellent even though it has a highly nuanced unionist bias.
You’re ignoring the concerns about conscription probably the most important factor in the shift to Sinn Féin.
Would advise that it makes a lot of sense as to his bias when you consider this man is part of the Henry Jackson Institute, a which after a quick Google is a Neoconservative Neoliberal (which seems like an oxymoron but I take it socially and politically respectively) pro-interventionalist think tank which I thank the other commenter that pointed this out.
Would explain why he felt it appropriate to ignore the context of the plantations of Ireland (the ethnic cleansing and colonisation it entailed) whilst referencing constant migration to Ireland from Britain
The Seven Signatories R.I.P. of the Proclamation of the
Irish Republic 1916; (and Leaders of the Easter Rising In Ireland 1916;) who were murdered by the English authorities in Ireland:-
Tomas S. O Cleirigh. (Thomas J. Clarke.)
Sean Mac Diarmada.
Tomas Mac Donnchadha (Thomas MacDonagh.)
P.A. Mac Piarais (P.H. Pearse.)
Eamonn Ceannt (Eamon Ceannt.)
Seamas O Conghaile (James Connolly.)
Seosamh Pluincead (Joseph Plunket;)
were the Founding Fathers of the Irish Republic 1916; with
President Padraig H. Pearse as the first President; and who read aloud the Proclamation of the Irish Republic 1916; outside the General Post Office in Dublin; and immediately after James Connolly shook his hand.
The Proclamation of the Irish Republic 1916; is in essence a
Constitutional Document and was the First Constitution of Ireland.
He is a professor of _political_ history and he tends to avoid wars and violence and focuses on why and how things go so wrong that violence was the result. His Falkland War and Suez lectures are other great examples.
Personally I find that very refreshing as there are so many violence glorifying documentaries underscored by heroic music on CZcams that rarely explain properly _why_ people fought.
@@evelynmccabe3855 I have written numerous posts regarding ALL the 1916 Rising Leaders. I did not write the post you refer to? You are mistaken.
@@gearoidantoineomaolain3285
Sorry my apologies must have answered wrong post by accident.
America was once ruled by Britain and is also not in the Commonwealth
No you can’t count them, they’re an ally
I've heard Irish people say we'll join after America, in other words, never gonna happen.
There was a very brief effort to agree a "Central Board Plan" between the Home Rulers and Lord Randolph Churchill of the Conservative Party. Randolph Churchill suggested a Central Board, elected by local councils, with limited All-Ireland powers. Parnell told his backbench MP Captain O'Shea to tell Churchill he would accept it as a step towards Home Rule but not instead of it. However O'Shea, whose wife was having an affair with Parnell (which he may or may not have known about) told Churchill that Parnell had accepted the plan. So when Parnell disavowed it, Churchill felt double-crossed, and this increased his opposition to Home Rule.
I like Vernon Bogdanor - He has a brilliant mind - This detached assessment of Irish history is rather fair and balanced - History can be interesting - In a Europe now at war with Russia - It is interesting Vernon's parents come from Ukraine with his Mum being born in Poland - The Ireland question remains unresolved - For many the six counties remain stolen - Ireland one day will be reunified - It may take another lifetime however the direction of travel seems to be heading for one Ireland - Britain turning its back on Europe has reignited the border problem - Ultimately it will be the people of Northern Ireland who will decide their future - We certainly do not want the troubles to return - We can only hope for continued peace within the island of Ireland.
Ghandi was so impressed by us Irish they adopted our colours into there flag and also copied lots of our constitution,
Even though the Constitution of Ireland was based on the US Constitution.
If there ever was to be a UI then the mistakes of the past must not be repeated. It would have to be a partnership of equals and respect all traditions. We’ve seen what happens when a majority tries to keep a minority oppressed and downtrodden. Let’s learn from that and resign it to the history books.
Think that’s what almost everyone supporting UI wants even if the fringe diesnt
Only need to look at the republic
You've just described the existing Irish republic.
The 'mistakes' were British; the learning of lessons belongs to those who made the mistakes not to those who remedied them in the independent territory as soon as they achieved that independence.
An excellent lecture, except for one glaring omission.
The Act of Union is described as a legislative outcome of the Irish and British Parliaments.
No Catholic could sit in that Irish Parliament, by law, in a country that was 78% Catholic.
‘Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right’.
Randolph Churchill never believed that he said that to trick Ulster Protestants and it worked according to his son Winston Churchill who admired Irish Republicans like Michael Collins then Ulster Unionists like Sir James Craig or Edward Carson
There's always a first time but maybe not in this case 🙂
I can't help but notice-Prof. Bogdanor seems to be having some trouble with his hair. 🤣
Some hair gel may stabilise the situation, hair rule or defollication?
One part of his hair wants to break away and govern itself, but he won't let it
@@xtrailz U.D.I. For the floppy fringe?
@@highvoltageswitcher6256 home rule is not same as indipendence
@@eastvillepark6037 hair dipendence?
He does have lovely hair doesn’t he.
The way things are going in the UK, it would be better if Ireland ruled over Britain
What famine ,it was genocide during the famine years over two thousand ships sailed from Irish ports to the UK, the people trying to stop these food shipments were shot or arrested or left to starve
The unionists didn' t ask for privaligst because they already had it. What they wanted was for that
Privalage to continue
When you're used to privilege others being given equality looks like you're being disadvantaged.
Top lecture! Wish the speaker had had a haircut- what a head of hair - I am jealous! 🇮🇪🇦🇺🇮🇪🇦🇺
I posted a comment the other day convinced it was a wig! Whoops!
With respect to the Professor, it's not an "Irish" problem, it's a "British" problem in Ireland. Always has been and remains thus.
*An Irish problem made by the British
Please put a clip in your hair , or use a full jar of jell to fix the distraction. "" Best wishes from Dublin. "" 😉👍
Will Robert Emmet 1778-1803 Irish patriot epitaph ever be written in 32 county Irish Republic 🇮🇪.
the fact that a Protestant like Parnell was leading the call for Home Rule could have assuaged Ulster Protestant worries about becoming a disenfranchised minority, at least a little bit. this, of course, leads nicely to the fact that Parnell's career was torpedoed by an adultery scandal, something the Irish Catholic hierarchy condemned him for.
notwithstanding Parnell's wisdom in choosing love over political discretion, or the Catholic Church's own political motives in its condemnation, i wonder if this very public "backstabbing" of a prominent Protestant by the Catholic establishment only served to incite more fears in Ulster.
I'm sure he has many interesting things to say. I will listen intently after he gets a haircut.
This is very much a talk about Unionism rather than Ireland or Ulster. In fairness, I'm only 30 minutes in.
The speaker overlooks nationalists & Catholics in Ulster.
I was of the understanding that The European Court of Justice was nothing to do with the EU. So don't quite understand the comment on it being a foreign court as the UK is also still subject to this?
Are you confusing the European Court of Justice with the European Court of Human Rights?
A very clear and articulate lecture. The political machinations in Westminster are well described. One point he avoided was the sense that Protestants in Ulster regard themselves as as superior race , a Herren Volk who have an irrational hatred of Catholicism. This goes back to the persecution of Catholics by James the second who helped settle their forefathers in Ulster. When this sentiment fades into obscurity a true reconciliation of the Irish Question should emerge.
Yep, he ought to pepper the lecture with pseudo-scientific diagrams of the "Hiberno-Iberian" sub-racial grouping so beloved by social darwinists of the time. To avoid this pseudo-scientific bigotry, as well as the fervent anti-Catholicism of the Northeastern Irish presbyterian community in particular, is neglectful and misleading.
I'd say a border poll in about 10 - 20 years will probably sort it, once and for all.
It might sort getting British rule removed, but then we're left with the Unionists :(
Always enjoyed his lectures but that quiff need sorting for sure.
Convenient simplification of 19th c for a British audience - narrative is laced with popular clichéd myths and tropes
Succinctly and accurately put. The 20th century was treated little better, especially the second civil war (euphemistically The Troubles). The speaker was shamelessly biased in favour of those identifying with the British union. The comments are more illuminating than the lecture.
@@mauriceoreilly9955 I mean when you ignore the fact ireland was colonised it makes it appear than the mean old Irish simply wanted tyranny over the Protestant minority to stop them staying in the union
The Ulster covenant: "To preserve... Our position of equal citizenship in the UK"; and their advantage over Catholics; not a very Christian position.
Catholic isn't Christian
@@user-ze8yy8jg1f the first Christian Church
The Irish Question and the Ulster Question Then and Now 1247pm 22.11.22 ...and i qouth "c**** they may be, but the mail's still gotta get through!"
Comparing the secessionist Confederacy to Irish nationalist/republican independence movements is a bit much.
Maintaining slavery was never an Irish nationalist demand.
Also a bit rich considering how badly the British government had treated Ireland over the previous hundreds of years
There’s a lovely British blind spot politically culturally and religiously, that the king is simultaneously head of the army and the national church.
The desire for a republic is as much about ending monarchy and having a secular democratic society as it is about independence from an exploitative foreign government
The English tend to see a constitutional monarchy as perfectly fine, so why would anyone complain?
Actually, it’s a pretty fair comparison. Irish nationalism is just as racist and a lot more violent than views held in the American states.
An English person who goes to Ireland today can expect to be sneered at and face abuse for simply being who they are sadly.
@@raymondhaskin9449 Nineteenth century slavery? Really? So you’re not just some pissant troll?
@@raymondhaskin9449 absolute rubbish.
@@raymondhaskin9449 English people are not sneered when they come to Ireland, that's complete baloney. 300,000 British people live in Ireland.
The English, especially in the South East were always concerned about European institutions interfering in their affairs. Think of Thomas a’Beckett in Canterbury, got the wrong side of his old pal the King, because of siding with the Roman Catholic Churches interests and rights. The English ruling elite see a monarch, who rules at parliaments pleasure, as protecting them from a continent that is usually at war or repressive and not respectful of rights (especially property rights).
Labour and the DUP voted against May's deal. If they had voted for it then Northern Ireland would have not been economically separated so much. Now the backstop seems like a bit of constitutional mess but not really sure what the alternative can be?
The issue is both the symbolic and practical problem of the Irish Sea border. It’s completely understandable to want to control goods going on into the EU via Eire. However, there is the checks and stoppage of goods going just to NI... Tesco and Asda sausages! Do sausages really threaten the integrity of the EU single market? Stopping the over zealous application of EU rules on goods largely for NI (and the odd Cavan breakfast) would help with the practicalities. This would take the sting out of the constitutional issue.
Who, what or where is this Eire?
The backstop was dropped in 2019
@@des1029 Yes if it poisons people in the EU, since there is no border infrastructure things can be carried. It's best to stop all at the ports.
@@indogoUI that’s a tad irrational. Food sold in the UK currently meets all EU standards and even if there was a slight variation in the future. Why would it suddenly become poisonous? People on both sides of the border pop over to visit or shop. I can’t see how an M&S loaf or a Tesco sausage is a threat to the EU.
Sure! If it isn't ourselves ?
Either say "Derry/Londonderry" or just "Derry" , "Londonderry" isn't nice to a lot of people
The big problem with Ireland is that both sides are absolutely right.
haha the unionists are definitely wrong
Every time you say "the Irish problem", you insult Irish people and the Irish nation. In Ireland there is no such thing as "the Irish problem". That term is a British invention designed to excuse its colonisation and oppression of Ireland over the centuries. The main problem in Ireland is British occupation and interference with its empire sectarianism, divide and rule etc. These things will end with the complete British withdrawal from a country that never consented to British rule; where Britain has no right to be in, it never did and never will have that right.
He is explaining it from the viewpoint of a British establishment historian. Stop being so thin skinned.
@@maxcream6726yes, he is absolutely explaining it from the point if view of the British establishment. It is replete with subtle imperialist bias.
Mm one aspect of the Protestant Unionist Loyalist grouping (PUL) as opposed to the other major grouping, the Catholic Nationalist Republican (CNR) one, is that within the former, the age profile is much older. So as time goes on, the PUL will slowly diminish in size and the CNR will probably get larger but very slowly. Meanwhile the middle ground (ie neither PUL nor CNR) and mainly represented by the NI Alliance and NI Green parties, will probably enlarge more quickly. It is they and increasingly seeing themselves as "Northern Irish" (ie not Irish nor British) who will probably decide NI's future. They may decide their future lies with the EU, and thus with an increasingly affluent Republic (tho it has its own internal housing and health service issues). And not with a now non EU UK, with that state's major internal problems (including a sullen and still strongly pro EU Scotland). And should Irish unity emerge, will it be a unitary state, a federal one (NI having some int self rule) or IMO, a confederal one (with Stormont retaining much local control, the Republic only handling foreign affairs and defence)..??
The question is when will Britain ever FO?
Cen fath?
Would be my Irish question.
Time spent on this, by the "political geniuses of their race," might have been time better spent.
Gresham Lectures - do you plan an Irish answer to the Irish question? The information from the speaker, although informed and entertaining, is unbalanced.
Thank you for this presentation.
Ar mbuíochas
It would be proper for an Irish historian and a specialist in this period to deliver a response to this lecture. I mean, the "Irish problem", ffs. The problem was the drive to self-determination. The source of the problem was misrule from Westminster. Ergo, the solution to the problem has largely since proved to be...
England would pay it's way glad to get North Ireland of it's back
It's coming home.
It is an interesting lecture but shows a fundamental lack of understanding or context of the events post home rule / 1914 - 1922.
We in Scotland are not integrated into the UK,
oh boo hoo cry about it ya pooof
Oh get over yourself. Not everything is about Scotland, you know.
@@jmccullough662 top of the evening to you too,eader Alba agus Erin. Never remember saying it was!
Jacqueline you are right - honestly it will be England that ends up leaving first at this rate. The absolute whining, exceptionalism and lack of appreciation of what the union produced is boring now
@@deanunio mar sin leibh an drasta,bye
Only one gripe (of a slightly bias take albeit very factual) and that his use of the Irish Independant survey of the Rep.
wether the monitory cost of unity makes the rep vote less certain. Putting the united Ireland Question in the manner if they are willing to be poorer is Shenanigans. Beside the facts that 10% of the population wouldn't vote for anything that makes them poorer the poll itself is a strawman given that a United Ireland makes both sides richer - this is almost unanimously accepted amongst economists
66% would vote unity in the Rep.
A bit of gel in the hair would be handy
Edward Carson had a Cat
That sat upon a stool
And every time He smelled a Rat
He shouted No Home Rule!
Irritating, though understandable given he's English, (the son of immigrants) Bogdanor kept referring to the UK as "the country". England certainly has been Ireland's problem for many centuries, Wales too, certainly Scotland's today. Apparently a signatory to the principles of the Henry Jackson Society, arghhh!
Ulster is Irish. Ulster Presbyterians founded the United Irishmen. To break the connection with Britain.....Britain has no place in Ireland 🇮🇪
And NOW we're fighting a plantation / colony.
Note to Scotland: After session from London negotiate for union with Dublin instead of membership with Brussels. Much easier. Check. (sarcasm)
Why didn't the SNP think of this or did they
Until occupied by the British, Northern Ireland, or the North of Ireland has never in been ruled by anyone other than the Northern Irish, they have always been independant throughout history. Until Northern Ireland is left the way Britain found it when they invaded, independant, able to determine its own future without ouside interference. Both Dublin and London will continue to squabble over it as they have always done and assume responsibility for something that is none of their business. The Northern Irish will be ignored as usual.
'Until occupied by the British, Northern Ireland, or the North of Ireland has never in been ruled by anyone other than the Northern Irish, they have always been independant throughout history.'
Rubbish. There was no such people as the Northern Irish until recently. Ulster was rule by Gaelic families, the O'Neill's being the dominant clan.
'Until Northern Ireland is left the way Britain found it when they invaded, independant, able to determine its own future without ouside interference.'
Northern Ireland did not exist. Ulster was Gaelic and resistant to English interference - it will never return to that. There is no evidence of that the people of Ulster did not see themselves as Irish. We know from the writings of Irish monks that Ireland was seen as one nation, and that those Irish living in Scotland and Wales etc were 'the Irish in exile'. Ireland was there homeland, and the province of Ulster was part of it, along with Leinster, Connacht, Munster and at on point, Meath.
'Both Dublin and London will continue to squabble over it as they have always done and assume responsibility for something that is none of their business. The Northern Irish will be ignored as usual.'
Rubbish. There can be no constitutional change without the consultation of the Northern Irish people. The Northern Irish could help themselves by reviving Stormont and acting like grown ups.
ulster was planted with scottish and english people because it was THE MOST GAELIC AND REBELLIOUS PROVENCE. in modern day 6 counties parts of it are more gaelic and irsh than parts of Dublin
I wonder to what extent attitudes to Northern Ireland in Great Britain will influence the future.
How much support does NI have from the populace on the mainland?
Great Britain is not the mainland of Ireland. Great Britain is just another island.
@@Dreyno
Technically it is. Britain is the main land of the British isles.
The British isles have always been treated as a single geographic unit.
Classical scholars refer to the islands as “Britannia” - one unit - which included Ireland.
@@raymondhaskin9449 a wasp viewpoint of geography. The North Western Atlantic archipelago is the accurate term.
In England I suspect the average voter does not either understand or to be honest care one way or the other.
@@raymondhaskin9449 Technically the “British Isles” is not an accepted term by the Irish government. And as such, it’s illegitimate. British government and academia can use it as much as they like and it will never be legitimate because the people who live there do not recognise it. They don’t get to decide what the place other people live is called. If the Irish government and academics decided to start calling Great Britain “East Ireland” or “France Minor”, would that be acceptable? I doubt it.
I really think the speaker hit the nail on the head re unification today. The problem is not so much the North, despite Unionists' best efforts, the real question is are the people of the South be willing to pay for it...
The speaker also fails to acknowledge that the £9b subvention or in other words the difference between the tax the north pays and what it spends doesn’t substract UK wide spending that Northern Ireland would not have to pay for in a unified Ireland.
Elements of this are for example Uk defence spending on wars and on trident, £1b the pensions of NI civil servants-who would’ve paid their contributions to the UK state £3b and then finally UK national debt, £2b which would greater than halve the subvention required.
£9-1-2-3=£3b
Converting to Euro we’ll round upwards to €4b
Irish tax receipts were €96b in 2021
I think the issue is very often flagged and raised in such a way to make it appear as if one it wouldn’t be possible to grow the NI economy and 2 that NI is some sort of poison chalice that we will be forced to swallow if we dare to consider the possibility
@@beaglaoich4418 I think in the end the situation will play out very much like the integration of East Germany. A very costly process with some very unhappy communities, but in the end if that's what the people want it will happen...
Ireland can very much afford the north and it's been widely proven by economists. Have you not done any research? Afraid to?
Firstly, the island is becoming one economically speaking with trade now booming between north and south - this makes reunification much easier.
The north's annual subsidy from Britain is around the 9 billion pound mark, however, not all of this would carry over into Ireland. Economists estimated it to be approximately 2 or 3 billion pounds instead and would merely result in a minimal pick-up by Irish citizens (it's short-term and manageable).
Also, you're forgetting we'd be benefitting from the north's resources, too! Trade is already huge right now and also tourism, don't forget 💚
Another thing is there are already Irish companies working both side of the imaginary border. Are you forgetting that we supply your electricity 😏 Irish energy company Viridian owns electricity and gas supplier Energia, two power plants in Dublin and PowerNI in the North.
Also, agriculturally, Cavan-based Lakeland Dairies is the island’s second largest dairy co-op and works both sides of the imaginary border.
Resources will spill over between north and south creating an economic balance.
It won't be perfect or plain sailing, but who said it would be?
At the end of the day, the people of the north voted to remain in the EU. Young people want that and young people want change.
Britain isn't viable anymore and its GDP is decreasing. The Scots will get independence as the movement is growing. The Union is breaking up.
The Tories don't give a rats about you all. You cost too much for them and they don't get back. Public spending on services is often higher in the north than other parts of the UK.
The north is only doing better now thanks to the protocol and its vote away from Brexit.
Blame it all on Westminster, pal 👍
@@imastaycool hmm not really afraid, I'm from the North, actually hold an Irish passport and am broadly in favour of integration. However I've been surprised at how many southerners I've met have been against integration or simply don't want to think about it.
In the end I believe a united Ireland will most likely be greater than the sum of its parts. However there will be short term consequences and some communities might not see the benefit, immediately at least.
So I think it's important that the situation is presented as accurately and fully to people as possible. Just saying it'll be great from day one isn't much better then the arguments that the pro Brexit lot made in England. I think we can do better than that..
@@SamMcDonald83 I'm from Dublin and don't know a single "Southener" ,as you put it, who is against integration or reunification of Ireland.
Where are you meeting these "Southeners"?
Northern Ireland. A land grab. The ppl who live there now will decide its fate. Nonetheless those who feel Irish up there feel that partition at the time was wrong and unjust. Some havent accepted it at all. Loyalists lobbied for the name Ulster to be the name of the new state. As they even hated the mere mention of Ireland at all. Says it all really.
What has just happened in Nagorno Karabakh shows what will happen if the Union is ever lost , maybe not so quickly , but where is the Unionist community in The Free State today ? There were plenty in the 26 counties in 1922
Southern Unionists accepted their lot and backed the Free State. When the existing Fine Gael party was established, it comprised of those who supported the signing of the Treaty with Britain in 1921, the old Home Rule nationalists and Southern Unionists. There are no supporters of the union in the south today, they identify with the Irish state now.
@@taintabird23 Accepted defeat is what you mean and to an extent you are correct backing the Free State less so some Anglo-Irish Aristos accepted appointments to the Senate . Your claim that nobody is left in the 26 counties who Identify with the Union is the point I was making if you had read what I said and why the Unionists in the North East should ' never surrender ' as it were .
@@5888max I know perfectly we what you said. I was explaining where they went.
Remember, thousands of Ulster Scots were abandoned in the Free State when unionists decided to gerrymander a 6 county rather than a 9 county Ulster. They were betrayed by their own. They have by and large adapted well to living in the south and while they retain their Ulster Scots identity, they also identify as citizens of Ireland. One of them is a government minister.
@@taintabird23 The 26 county State has changed a great deal in my life time , but even when I was young and it was Catholic Church FF run backward dump . We had Protestant politicians in fact 2 Presidents were from that back ground so don't get all excited about a minister for Social protection in this more secular age , plenty of Irish Catholics from both sides of the boarder and play a full role in the UK's public life as well . I note the heads I win tails you lose reference to three of the Ulster counties being taken by the Free State if they had remained in the UK you would be claiming that huge numbers of Catholic had been force to live under colonial oppression even though they were a majority in there county's. What you might consider is that the Catholic population in the 6 has risen since partition and the minority in the 26 has dwindled. You don't have to be a genius to work out from that , where minority identity is safest. I could quote many small examples but sense you are not very open minded!
@@5888max You have an uncanny ability to read your biases into what I'm actually saying. Must be the siege mentality.
Protestants play a full role in Irish society, so I have no reason to get excited over Heather Humphries. She's just another politician to me, at the end of the day.
There was nothing democratic about the establishment or creation of Northern Ireland, it was a plan hatched between Belfast and London without the consultation of any Irish nationalists - or as you see them - 'Catholics'. The newly gerrymandered region of the UK in Ireland provided what Craig called a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Had there been no border, it seems likely that the excesses of both jurisdictions could have been avoided in the century that followed. But we are where we are.
I don't need to consider anything in relation to demographic change on the island of Ireland. I have already studied the exhaustive research into the subject, and unlike you, i understood it.
Catholics have more babies than Protestants on both sides of the border. In Northern Ireland though, part the reason Protestants declined in relation to their religious opponents is because many left and moved to the 'mainland', especially middle class Prods.
In the republic, the Protestant population had been in decline since the disestablishment of the church in the 19th century. They suffered disproportionality in terms of losses during the Great War, and many others left with the departure of British administration in 1921/22. And of course in the years that followed many emigrated for economic reasons, just like Catholics, and some will have departed out of fear of what living with Irish nationalism might mean for them. These days the numbers have stabilised because of the numbers of Protestants moving into Ireland.
Ulster Prods don't want to share NI with Catholics. Everybody can see that.
The idea that Protestants felt less safe in the republic when compared to NI actually infuriates southern Protestants. Protestants in the south, though small in number, belong to the upper socio-economic echelons of Irish society, particularly among the professions such as in law, architecture, accountancy. Many among the judiciary are Protestant. ( Unlike in Belfast, Dublin did not have vast swathes of working class Prods). Protestants in the south would often write letters to the editor of the Irish Times over the years, distancing themselves from the Paisleyite characterization of southern Protestants being 'an oppressed minority'.
Contrary to your uncalled for side-swipe, I'm quite open minded about anything you have to say. I'm not open minded about tired old tropes, long disregarded by thinking people. You can keep them to yourself.
Btw, there is no 'a' in border.
The fundamental problem for Ireland has and always will be the British. Yet another English man telling us how to "fix" the problem they created. The hypricosy is astonishing!
The English question.
That's what the others in this region are facing.
the question we English are facing is; 'why would we want to be united to Scotland, Wales and Ulster when we'd be richer and happier without them?'
There doesn't seem to be a solution but one,,time. As time goes by secularism grows, the ties to the catholic/nationalist and protestant/ulster camps weaken ans lines becomes blurred. A united Ireland will then probably happen sometime in the future when thereisn't that much to be hostile about when it comes about. But that is way in the future and until then there will be no short term solution.
Why the assumption that secularism will lead to unification? The status quo is just as, if not more, likely.
@@des1029 because the lines will be blurred and camps that was clearly divided by religion once will be no more. Then it would only be natural to see one island, one nation. What would be the reason not to unify then?
@@Detector1977 hi. You are assuming an island is a natural geopolitical unit. That is not always the case. The current tensions on the GB mainland. Hispaniola, New Guinea and I’m sure there are others. However the key dividers the cultural differences and the right to self determination. The challenge is at what point does the latter kick in.
@@des1029 I might be wrong but it just feels like a natural progression to unify Ireland when the divides blurr out over time...
@@Detector1977 Why? More importantly the lines have lasted so long they won’t go quickly. The fundamental question of political loyalty may well survive secularism. I’m an atheist but still British (but also proudly Irish).
"Ireland, along with Burma and Myanmar are the ONLY countries ruled by Britain which are not now in the commonwealth" Has this lecturer never heard of the United States of America?