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

@@johnnotrealname8168 The cabinet mission plan was put forward by the British government in 1946, but was rejected by Nehru and the Muslim League.

@@tomtomftube No, it does not.

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.

Ulster Unionists Loyalists seige mentality.

Because being governed by Spain is fantastic I guess, just ask Catalonia.

Very true and what the Irish Nationalist Government in Dublin calls Ireland is only 26 counties out of 32

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.

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

But text book. It was wrong like Islamic now to allow one faith to dominate whole country

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

there's a bunch of Irish history videos available here on YT, depends on your particular interests.

@@EireFirst2024 ‘

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'

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Yeah they creating sectarain havoc in Ulster especially Northern Ireland we still trying get rid of to this day since 1609.

That’s geopolitics for you, and every country does it. Hence why Russia doesn’t want Ukraine in NATO and why France annexed Alsace.

That's Gladstone.

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.

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?

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 👍

Even though the Constitution of Ireland was based on the US Constitution.

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 ...

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.

Religion was the excuse for avarice and basic colonial theft. Simple as.

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 KZfaq 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.

Don’t know.

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.

Tell that to members of the DUP.

@@wildsurfer12 Poor people, they already lost and they still haven't realized it.

@@gottmituns813 In that case I’m sure Dublin would be happy to fork out the same for benefits that are currently paid in Ulster.

@@wildsurfer12 The Republic of Ireland is one of the richest countries in the world in GDP per capita, don't worry, it can afford it.

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!

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)

It might sort getting British rule removed, but then we're left with the Unionists :(

Are you confusing the European Court of Justice with the European Court of Human Rights?

I posted a comment the other day convinced it was a wig! Whoops!

When you're used to privilege others being given equality looks like you're being disadvantaged.

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

*An Irish problem made by the British

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

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 🙂

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.

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.

Catholic isn't Christian

@@user-ze8yy8jg1f the first Christian Church

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.

haha the unionists are definitely wrong

Ulster Scots have been brainwashed.

Although we actually wanted to implement the home rule bill in 1914, but couldn’t because of WW1.

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

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).

Why didn't the SNP think of this or did they

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.

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?'

Why should they?

British imperialism, divide and rule

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.

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).

'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

There a alot smaller country's than Ireland that have independence so that should answer your question

@@sheaw2067, Even as individual humans we have independence, but we can achieve more in a group, that though requires sacrificing some autonomy.

@@i.m.gurney That's why we're in the EU, but Ireland is still our country.

Agreed, as we still have pride & love for our counties, cities, towns, villages, even estates, roads.

Neither country is large enough unless covered by US power. The EU itself only exists because the US wants it that way. Ireland very wisely has military neutrality in its constitution. It must resist any dangerous nonsense from the EU about a Federal army. The UK or even just England, if independence came to Scotland and Wales, cannot be a threat to Ireland. On the contrary, it would have to come to Ireland’s aid if Ireland was threatened by a third county. This is because the US will always protect Ireland from any future potential threat for the UK (can’t see why it would do this). The US would put the UK under enormous pressure (above Suez crisis levels) should it try to militarily strong arm Ireland. Any country, save the US, that threatens the skies, seas or territory of Ireland would be only one step away from threatening the UK. Hence, when asked by Ireland (this time), would have no option but to make Ireland’s enemy a UK enemy also. So the UK is effectively always in a weak geopolitical position with regards to Ireland. It tends to be in a stronger position with regards to the economy but this too would be unwise to use too strongly, again the US would apply pressure. Like it or not the UK and Ireland are somewhat interdependent. As the EU weakens, due to demographics and deglobalisation, and France strengthens, Ireland and Scotland will have to pick to get on with the French or the English. I suspect they will chose cheese and wine over roast beef.