Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Northern Ireland and temporarily England
7,668 posts, read 5,261,452 times
Reputation: 1392
Advertisements
I agree. I think the whole British isles should just use the British Pound Stirling and at that stop printing bank notes for every bank and just create one standard note.
We use so much Bank of England notes here that we would barely notice.
^
You know I was just interested in the point where would it help eco issues there in NI and Eire if the currency situation was simpler? I am not an economist and I figure this may be exceedingly more problematic than I realize. Willing to get educated...;-)....
I am Protestant but have no time for the marches, cant stand them or any actions.. the burning of flags goes both ways though sadly, and not only the Loyalists, time it all stopped...
Legitimate celebration of ones culture is fine by me, if that is the true motivation. It can also be conducted in areas where the audience is going to be receptive to it, not in areas where it will be intentionally provocative.
Let's face it, they are not trying to march in those areas to try and get new recruits.
As to Loyalists, I consider them a different breed than a typical Unionist. Maybe my distinction is to nuanced, but I'd assume someone calling themselves a Unionist would be more able to be reasoned with than a Loyalist?
Legitimate celebration of ones culture is fine by me, if that is the true motivation. It can also be conducted in areas where the audience is going to be receptive to it, not in areas where it will be intentionally provocative.
Let's face it, they are not trying to march in those areas to try and get new recruits.
As to Loyalists, I consider them a different breed than a typical Unionist. Maybe my distinction is to nuanced, but I'd assume someone calling themselves a Unionist would be more able to be reasoned with than a Loyalist?
`
Wha ???
Can you differentiate for me the distinctions between Unionists and Loyalists as you understand them.
If you say what I think you're going to say, I'll say I think it's so nuanced that it's a distinction without a difference, but you could surprise me.
Legitimate celebration of ones culture is fine by me, if that is the true motivation. It can also be conducted in areas where the audience is going to be receptive to it, not in areas where it will be intentionally provocative.
Let's face it, they are not trying to march in those areas to try and get new recruits.
As to Loyalists, I consider them a different breed than a typical Unionist. Maybe my distinction is to nuanced, but I'd assume someone calling themselves a Unionist would be more able to be reasoned with than a Loyalist?
`
none are reasonable to me if they want to continue the hatred.
Can you differentiate for me the distinctions between Unionists and Loyalists as you understand them.
If you say what I think you're going to say, I'll say I think it's so nuanced that it's a distinction without a difference, but you could surprise me.
Well keep in mind that the following is based on generalities with the understanding that exceptions are certainly possible.
To me, it seems as if "Unionists" are less rigid than those who call themselves "Loyalists". I would generalize the Irish community in the same way, to where "Nationalists" are less rigid than "Republicans".
I base that generalization on sever things. For starters, both the Loyalists and Republicans seem more likely to be part of a paramilitary organization than the other self designated groups. Granted you will have both Unionists and Nationalists in those groups, but they seem less "hardcore" if you will.
I also base it on how the SDLP and UUP represented the Nationalists/Unionists respectively, where as the hardliners of Sinn Fein and the DUP/PUP represented the Republican/Loyalists respectively.
Some of this perception might be media driven to where someone like Johnny "Mad Dog" Adair was labeled a Loyalist, and Martin McGuinness was labeled a Republican.
Of course the irony of the aforementioned is that both Trimble and Hume were the pragmatists that needed to drag Paisley and Adams into the GFA. Now of course both SF and the DUP are majority parties in Stormont representing a wider swath of the electorate. Sure there are political differences, and some believe the SDLP & UUP represent more of the educated middle class, vs. SF & DUP representing the less educated lower class. Still I never thought I'd see the day where not only did McGuinness & Paisley share power together, they supposedly became friends.
So while Trimble and Hume deserve a lot of credit, the lasting image of Paisley and McGuinness laughing and getting along is the most hopeful sign that peaceful negotiation is possible between the hardliners.
Anyway, I am wondering how accurate or far off some of you think my general assessment is?
Well keep in mind that the following is based on generalities with the understanding that exceptions are certainly possible.
To me, it seems as if "Unionists" are less rigid than those who call themselves "Loyalists". I would generalize the Irish community in the same way, to where "Nationalists" are less rigid than "Republicans".
I base that generalization on sever things. For starters, both the Loyalists and Republicans seem more likely to be part of a paramilitary organization than the other self designated groups. Granted you will have both Unionists and Nationalists in those groups, but they seem less "hardcore" if you will.
I also base it on how the SDLP and UUP represented the Nationalists/Unionists respectively, where as the hardliners of Sinn Fein and the DUP/PUP represented the Republican/Loyalists respectively.
Some of this perception might be media driven to where someone like Johnny "Mad Dog" Adair was labeled a Loyalist, and Martin McGuinness was labeled a Republican.
Of course the irony of the aforementioned is that both Trimble and Hume were the pragmatists that needed to drag Paisley and Adams into the GFA. Now of course both SF and the DUP are majority parties in Stormont representing a wider swath of the electorate. Sure there are political differences, and some believe the SDLP & UUP represent more of the educated middle class, vs. SF & DUP representing the less educated lower class. Still I never thought I'd see the day where not only did McGuinness & Paisley share power together, they supposedly became friends.
So while Trimble and Hume deserve a lot of credit, the lasting image of Paisley and McGuinness laughing and getting along is the most hopeful sign that peaceful negotiation is possible between the hardliners.
Anyway, I am wondering how accurate or far off some of you think my general assessment is?
`
I'd say that's a shade too nuanced alright, and a distinction without a difference.
I think you might get a reaction, and not a subtle one, from McGuinness and Adair if you suggested they were not Nationalists/Unionists.
Other than that the parties represent different social/economic strata, to a greater or lesser degree, I still don't understand the basis for your distinctions. Seems to me, as if you're trying to create categories to fill the party niches.
If the locals don't draw the distinction................
I'd say that's a shade too nuanced alright, and a distinction without a difference.
I think you might get a reaction, and not a subtle one, from McGuinness and Adair if you suggested they were not Nationalists/Unionists.
Other than that the parties represent different social/economic strata, to a greater or lesser degree, I still don't understand the basis for your distinctions. Seems to me, as if you're trying to create categories to fill the party niches.
If the locals don't draw the distinction................
Granted my perspective is not only from the outside looking in, but being from an entirely different country. While I would not presume to say McGuinness or Adair were not Nationalists/Unionists, might not they be those things, only on steroids?
So I wonder if the average person on either side of the divide would refer to themselves as either Republican or Loyalist, vs. a Nationalist or Unionist. If so, would they be considered more hardcore and by extension less likely to try and find common ground with the other side?
Granted my perspective is not only from the outside looking in, but being from an entirely different country. While I would not presume to say McGuinness or Adair were not Nationalists/Unionists, might not they be those things, only on steroids?
So I wonder if the average person on either side of the divide would refer to themselves as either Republican or Loyalist, vs. a Nationalist or Unionist. If so, would they be considered more hardcore and by extension less likely to try and find common ground with the other side?
`
In my experience both sides use the terms interchangeably without distinction.
In my experience both sides use the terms interchangeably without distinction.
Well assuming the Nationalist/Republican & Unionist/Loyalist terms are totally interchangeable, how would one try to label a more hardcore person on either side of the divide
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
