Sam McBride and Fintan O’Toole: ‘There are good arguments for and against a united Ireland’
The ‘conversation’ on a united Ireland is now constant, whether its wanted or not. Despite unionists and others saying campaigning for a border poll is not appropriate, nationalists continue to push for it. Sam McBride and Fintan O’Toole are amongst the island of Ireland’s best-known journalists. They have written a new book entitled ‘For and against a united Ireland’, in which they both write a chapter making the case for and against unity.
maybe in a united Ireland ulster should keep a devolved settlement and remain in an Efta type situation for 20 years or so, but expand back to the original boundary of ulster, one nation two systems???? even if not politically ulster and Scotland have been tied culturally well beyond the current plantation legacy and our relationship with ulster is something the yes movement has to address, its way longer and deeper than any relationship with England. an independent Scotland could maybe work out a working relationship with ulster to help take the strain of a unified Ireland in some regards??
What does “an independent Scotland could maybe work out a working relationship with ulster to help take the strain of a unified Ireland in some regards?” mean?
What I mean Mike is some sort of duel citizenship offer as many identity as Ulster Scots, (and I guess vice versa for those who identify as Irish in Scotland to a lesser extent) and help with co-funding areas like health if they wanted to keep the NHS, as well because a Scotland if
independent would have access to resources to support it, amongst other areas of cooperation like our shared culture of Scots and S Gaelic /Irish, never mind fishing and conservation issues. The truth is we’ve been tied together culturally for 3000 years.
Interesting idea. I think some people might be wary of importing sectarian problems with Ulster Scots.
True but we have these problems already, and only through education combined with socal economic programs that reestablish repopulation of areas like the south west and borders, it was the Pacification of the border leading and just after 1603 that with the reformation kicked it off in the first place a true education about lowland Gaelic culture and the Pacification and resulting clearances and plantation would help them see there true position as pawns, it’s a responsibility we have as much as anything if we are to become independent and have Ulster share in the journey with us and Ireland., it’s happening here so why not there.
I listened to all of that and found it a very good discussion.
The premise is fascinating – the two writers, one nationalist and one unionist, presenting arguments for both causes. Whilst clearly the political situation is not the same in Scotland, though also with clear parallels, is a similar approach conceivable here?
One of the advantages could be what was said at the very end – whatever the result of a border poll, it need not be seen as a disaster for whoever loses, which is actually quite a radical suggestion.
It’s an interesting idea isn’t it?
I’m trying to think of who you might suggest would do that?
That has me stumped. But I bet the same might have been said in Ireland / NI.
Perhaps it was easier there in that the two writers are from different independent countries. What would be the equivalent? This is where the significant differences are obvious. Still, the principle could still be applied somehow, in theory.
I got the impression that Sam McBride was really addressing the unionists at the end there – that a lost border poll and a united Ireland would not be the disaster for them that they might imagine. He is worried about violence and wants to avert that if the vote is to unite, hence the call for a serious debate. The reverse vote is, after all, simply the status quo.
Niemand – any parallels with Scotland are surely that in 2014 both sides of independence debate presented their case in a civilised, democratic manner.
The result was for Scotland to remain in the UK and no violence (George Square kerfuffle excepted) arose and result was accepted by all sides.
The debate continues as is normal in a democratic society. What is undemocratic is Westminster refusing to contemplate another referendum when Holyrood (elected by Scottish electorate under PR) has a majority in favour of one. The good news is, despite the frustration that this is causing , the independence issue continues to be debated and discussed without anyone resorting to violence.
Well, yeah but it was the idea that two people from opposing sides would write a book espousing their own and the other’s side. Since 2014 entrenchment has increased but also apathy. It could invigorate things in a new way, regardless of Westminster.
The Good Friday Agreement says a referendum must be held if the secretary of state believes it is likely that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote for Irish unification, apparently in opinion polls, but what that statement really means is hardly transparent as the Alliance Party leader says (with inevitable criticism from the DUP): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y9pyj9w8wo
So it is not that different in that the power lies with Westminster, and on vague terms.
Yes – the GFA statement on reunification vote circumstances is woolly and ultimately pretty meaningless. The interesting point is it states a 7 year period must elapse before another vote may take place which is a stark contrast to the once in a generation period that Westminster seems to have adopted for Scotland (without defining what length of time defines a generation.)
Sounds like uniting Celtic and Rangers.
And there has already been one Irish Republic civil war.
Your point caller?
Do you fancy another Irish Civil War? Try not to be so pointlessly condescending – it’s dumb.
And you think your Celtic and Rangers comment wasn’t dumb as f***?
Did you listen to the interview?
What an interesting discussion. The format is brilliant: having to make the case both for and against reunification helps to ensure that both really engage with the substance of the issues involved. Is such a thoughtful discussion possible here in Scotland? It needs to be if we are to make any progress on it.