Norn Iron leaders debate on bbc 1 last night

[combatlogo]

Here you go - sounds pretty discredited to me.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 15751.html

Nope, your English is piss poor - "your" for "you're", "would off..." etc

You mentioned several politicians in your list of "visionaries"...I referred to them, I wasn't referring to Wright...can you grasp this?

I asked whether you were a Nordie - that doesn't preclude you from being in Dublin.

Simple question - are/were you a supporter of the PIRA?

[gfo]

[MylesNaGapoleen]

Do please illustrate where there are grounds for you accusing me (constantly) of being a provo supporter. Despite your continued false accusations, pernicious lies and falsehoods, you continue to spout nonsense.

The grounds for you being a Provo are very simple - I've asked you several times whether you supported the PIRA's sectarian murder campaign - you've refused to answer. The only conclusion a reasonable person can draw is that you are indeed a Provo.

sorry to interject guys, but, wow...you really are totally consumed with sectarian tendancies, combatlogo. You're completely obsessed with labelling people...or putting them in a box. I won't even begin to try and work out where that's coming from, but, there are two things I would like to say:

(a) your question to sauvignon was as sectarian as you can get. You can't ask someone if they condemn the actions of just one side....that's simply idiotic. As a suggestion, the correct way of asking the question might be do you support PIRA's campaign of violence, the loyalist campaign of violence and the British government sponsored campaign of violence?. The obvious answer is NO.

(b) I assume you haven't been paying attention to what's happened this week... allow me to spell it out for you...in baby steps..

First of all, let's start with the demographics & voting patterns.

While we already know what happened robinson and empey....in this election, loads of people in protestant areas voted for Mark Durkan in Foyle, for Alistair McDonnell in South Belfast, for Margaret Ritchie in South Down. Ditto for for Michelle Gildernew (probably because they were appalled at the blatant sectarianism of the "Unionist Unity" campaign.) Even gerry adams was taken aback at the amount of unionists who voted for him in his constituency. The reason? because he got things done for them on a constituency level. Or to quote him from the belfast telegraph: "Its not so much they voted for Sinn Fein, but they told us so because Sinn Fein had done more for them than the unionist parties. I don't want to exaggerate this. It is small, but it is significant. It most comes from a section of working class people." - full article

Quite a lot of people in catholic areas voted for Lady Hermon, for Ian Óg in North Antrim to keep Mad Jim out, and quite possibly also - bizarre as it may seem - for Singin' Willie McCrea (the guy Sauvignon mentioned earlier) in South Antrim (probably to give the finger to the Tories).

The lesson to be garnered from this is: Leaving aside Daniel O'Connell and a few others, traditional Unionism (like nationalism) was always purely defined by religion. NOT ANY MORE. If you are struggling to get your head around that fact, it means the voters on both sides of the fence have MOVED ON. What's spectacular about it is that it's happened so soon. everyone expected at least another generation or two before this scenario came about. Leaving aside the obvious schaudenfreude at seeing Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson and Reg "let's bring the british army back" Empey losing their seats....that's what is so exciting about what happened this week.

There's no going back to the old ways and traditional Unionism (and nationalism) is just going to have to come to terms with that.

If the penny still hasn't dropped, combatlogo....here's another way of looking at it.

You are making giant leaps of assumption towards sauvignon....and lamely trying to compartmentalise him...e.g. he's either a provo or not based on your warped logic.....what the election this week has illustrated so well is that it's not two sides anymore....or boxes people with sectarian tendancies can put people into (like you're trying with sauvignon).

e.g. you have catholics (traditionally assumed to be nationalist) who supported sinn féin in the past shifting over to other parties and candidates based on perceived merit...which means not every catholic in NI wants reunification to happen - or at least not now - they just want a peaceful and fairer, more equal society NOW. You have protestants (traditionally assumed to be unionist) who supported the hardline unionist parties and candidates in the past have shifted over to other candidates and parties, which means not every protestant in NI wants to keep clinging on to the apron strings in downing street, bring the british army back and scupper the good friday agreement.

The bottom line is that the shift from sectarianism to voting on merit has happened much sooner than everyone expected - myself included. It's astonishing and in the same breath, it also highlights how pathetic your sectarian jibes at sauvignon are.

[orfeo]

Do please illustrate where there are grounds for you accusing me (constantly) of being a provo supporter. Despite your continued false accusations, pernicious lies and falsehoods, you continue to spout nonsense.

The grounds for you being a Provo are very simple - I've asked you several times whether you supported the PIRA's sectarian murder campaign - you've refused to answer. The only conclusion a reasonable person can draw is that you are indeed a Provo.

sorry to interject guys, but, wow...you really are totally consumed with sectarian tendancies, combatlogo. You're completely obsessed with labelling people...or putting them in a box. I won't even begin to try and work out where that's coming from, but, there are two things I would like to say:

(a) your question to sauvignon was as sectarian as you can get. You can't ask someone if they condemn the actions of just one side....that's simply idiotic. As a suggestion, the correct way of asking the question might be do you support PIRA's campaign of violence, the loyalist campaign of violence and the British government sponsored campaign of violence?. The obvious answer is NO.

(b) I assume you haven't been paying attention to what's happened this week... allow me to spell it out for you...in baby steps..

First of all, let's start with the demographics & voting patterns.

While we already know what happened robinson and empey....in this election, loads of people in protestant areas voted for Mark Durkan in Foyle, for Alistair McDonnell in South Belfast, for Margaret Ritchie in South Down. Ditto for for Michelle Gildernew (probably because they were appalled at the blatant sectarianism of the "Unionist Unity" campaign.) Even gerry adams was taken aback at the amount of unionists who voted for him in his constituency. The reason? because he got things done for them on a constituency level. Or to quote him from the belfast telegraph: "Its not so much they voted for Sinn Fein, but they told us so because Sinn Fein had done more for them than the unionist parties. I don't want to exaggerate this. It is small, but it is significant. It most comes from a section of working class people." - full article

Quite a lot of people in catholic areas voted for Lady Hermon, for Ian Óg in North Antrim to keep Mad Jim out, and quite possibly also - bizarre as it may seem - for Singin' Willie McCrea (the guy Sauvignon mentioned earlier) in South Antrim (probably to give the finger to the Tories).

The lesson to be garnered from this is: Leaving aside Daniel O'Connell and a few others, traditional Unionism (like nationalism) was always purely defined by religion. NOT ANY MORE. If you are struggling to get your head around that fact, it means the voters on both sides of the fence have MOVED ON. What's spectacular about it is that it's happened so soon. everyone expected at least another generation of two before this scenario came about. Leaving aside the obvious schaudenfreude at seeing Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson and Reg "let's bring the british army back" Empey losing their seats....that's what is so exciting about what happened this week.

There's no going back to the old ways and traditional Unionism (and nationalism) is just going to have to come to terms with that.

If the penny still hasn't dropped, combatlogo....here's another way of looking at it.

You are making giant leaps of assumption towards sauvignon....and lamely trying to compartmentalise him...e.g. he's either a provo or not based on your warped logic.....what the election this week has illustrated so well is that it's not two sides anymore....or boxes people with sectarian tendancies can put people into (like you're trying with sauvignon).

e.g. you have catholics (traditionally assumed to be nationalist) who supported sinn féin in the past shifting over to other parties and candidates based on perceived merit...which means not every catholic in NI wants reunification to happen - or at least not now - they just want a peaceful and fairer, more equal society NOW. You have protestants (traditionally assumed to be protestant) who supported the hardline unionist parties and candidates in the past have shifted over to other candidates and parties, which means not every protestant in NI wants to keep clinging on to the apron strings in downing street, bring the british army back and scupper the good friday agreement.

The bottom line is that the shift from sectarianism to voting on merit has happened much sooner than everyone expected - myself included. It's astonishing and in the same breath, it also highlights how pathetic your sectarian jibes at sauvignon are.

Tell me Myles , were you born this pompous and condescending or did it come with age ?

[MylesNaGapoleen]

sorry to interject guys, but, wow...you really are totally consumed with sectarian tendancies, combatlogo. You're completely obsessed with labelling people...or putting them in a box. I won't even begin to try and work out where that's coming from, but, there are two things I would like to say:

(a) your question to sauvignon was as sectarian as you can get. You can't ask someone if they condemn the actions of just one side....that's simply idiotic. As a suggestion, the correct way of asking the question might be do you support PIRA's campaign of violence, the loyalist campaign of violence and the British government sponsored campaign of violence?. The obvious answer is NO.

(b) I assume you haven't been paying attention to what's happened this week... allow me to spell it out for you...in baby steps..

First of all, let's start with the demographics & voting patterns.

While we already know what happened robinson and empey....in this election, loads of people in protestant areas voted for Mark Durkan in Foyle, for Alistair McDonnell in South Belfast, for Margaret Ritchie in South Down. Ditto for for Michelle Gildernew (probably because they were appalled at the blatant sectarianism of the "Unionist Unity" campaign.) Even gerry adams was taken aback at the amount of unionists who voted for him in his constituency. The reason? because he got things done for them on a constituency level. Or to quote him from the belfast telegraph: "Its not so much they voted for Sinn Fein, but they told us so because Sinn Fein had done more for them than the unionist parties. I don't want to exaggerate this. It is small, but it is significant. It most comes from a section of working class people." - full article

Quite a lot of people in catholic areas voted for Lady Hermon, for Ian Óg in North Antrim to keep Mad Jim out, and quite possibly also - bizarre as it may seem - for Singin' Willie McCrea (the guy Sauvignon mentioned earlier) in South Antrim (probably to give the finger to the Tories).

The lesson to be garnered from this is: Leaving aside Daniel O'Connell and a few others, traditional Unionism (like nationalism) was always purely defined by religion. NOT ANY MORE. If you are struggling to get your head around that fact, it means the voters on both sides of the fence have MOVED ON. What's spectacular about it is that it's happened so soon. everyone expected at least another generation of two before this scenario came about. Leaving aside the obvious schaudenfreude at seeing Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson and Reg "let's bring the british army back" Empey losing their seats....that's what is so exciting about what happened this week.

There's no going back to the old ways and traditional Unionism (and nationalism) is just going to have to come to terms with that.

If the penny still hasn't dropped, combatlogo....here's another way of looking at it.

You are making giant leaps of assumption towards sauvignon....and lamely trying to compartmentalise him...e.g. he's either a provo or not based on your warped logic.....what the election this week has illustrated so well is that it's not two sides anymore....or boxes people with sectarian tendancies can put people into (like you're trying with sauvignon).

e.g. you have catholics (traditionally assumed to be nationalist) who supported sinn féin in the past shifting over to other parties and candidates based on perceived merit...which means not every catholic in NI wants reunification to happen - or at least not now - they just want a peaceful and fairer, more equal society NOW. You have protestants (traditionally assumed to be protestant) who supported the hardline unionist parties and candidates in the past have shifted over to other candidates and parties, which means not every protestant in NI wants to keep clinging on to the apron strings in downing street, bring the british army back and scupper the good friday agreement.

The bottom line is that the shift from sectarianism to voting on merit has happened much sooner than everyone expected - myself included. It's astonishing and in the same breath, it also highlights how pathetic your sectarian jibes at sauvignon are.

Tell me Myles , were you born this pompous and condescending or did it come with age ?

LOL. my patience threshold for sectarianism, particularly when it's accompanied by ignorance and narrow-minded views, is pretty low, Orfeo, but hey, thanks for your wonderful contribution to this thread....it's really moved the discussion on quite a bit. Don't you think?

[combatlogo]

sorry to interject guys, but, wow...you really are totally consumed with sectarian tendancies, combatlogo. You're completely obsessed with labelling people...or putting them in a box. I won't even begin to try and work out where that's coming from, but, there are two things I would like to say: Please, I'd love to hear your pop psychology psychobaable analysis. I'm sectarian because I loathe the IRA? I think we're back on Planet Myles.

(a) your question to sauvignon was as sectarian as you can get. You can't ask someone if they condemn the actions of just one side....that's simply idiotic. As a suggestion, the correct way of asking the question might be do you support PIRA's campaign of violence, the loyalist campaign of violence and the British government sponsored campaign of violence?. The obvious answer is NO. Who the fcuk are you to limit the terms of refernce of the debate? I'll ask any question I please.

(b) I assume you haven't been paying attention to what's happened this week... allow me to spell it out for you...in baby steps..

First of all, let's start with the demographics & voting patterns.

While we already know what happened robinson and empey....in this election, loads of people in protestant areas voted for Mark Durkan in Foyle, for Alistair McDonnell in South Belfast, for Margaret Ritchie in South Down. Ditto for for Michelle Gildernew (probably because they were appalled at the blatant sectarianism of the "Unionist Unity" campaign.) Supposition based on zero evidence Even gerry adams was taken aback at the amount of unionists who voted for him in his constituency. The reason? because he got things done for them on a constituency level. Or to quote him from the belfast telegraph: "Its not so much they voted for Sinn Fein, but they told us so because Sinn Fein had done more for them than the unionist parties. I don't want to exaggerate this. It is small, but it is significant. It most comes from a section of working class people." - full article

Quite a lot of people in catholic areas voted for Lady Hermon, for Ian Óg in North Antrim to keep Mad Jim out, and quite possibly also - bizarre as it may seem - for Singin' Willie McCrea (the guy Sauvignon mentioned earlier) in South Antrim (probably to give the finger to the Tories).

The lesson to be garnered from this is: Leaving aside Daniel O'Connell and a few others, Err, Daniel O'Connell was a Catholic who led the campaign for Catholic Emancipation and a rather less successful campaign to repeal the Act of Union - are you telling me you actually thought he was a Protestant? traditional Unionism (like nationalism) was always purely defined by religion. NOT ANY MORE. If you are struggling to get your head around that fact, it means the voters on both sides of the fence have MOVED ON. What's spectacular about it is that it's happened so soon. everyone expected at least another generation or two before this scenario came about. Leaving aside the obvious schaudenfreude at seeing Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson and Reg "let's bring the british army back" Empey losing their seats....that's what is so exciting about what happened this week.

There's no going back to the old ways and traditional Unionism (and nationalism) is just going to have to come to terms with that.

If the penny still hasn't dropped, combatlogo....here's another way of looking at it.

Cross-religious tactical voting has always been there - Protestants in W Belfast voted for Joe Hendron in 1992 (provoking apoplexy from Adams and SF/IRA ); Catholics on Rathlin voted for Paisley Sr because they figured he looked after them in terms of constituency work.

What data are you using to extrapolate these sweeping claims that NI is now a post-sectarian Shangri-La? The election's less than a week old FFS!
You are making giant leaps of assumption towards sauvignon....and lamely trying to compartmentalise him...e.g. he's either a provo or not based on your warped logic....Well, he is either a Provo or he's not, just as he's either a Leinster fan or he's not..what the election this week has illustrated so well is that it's not two sides anymore...and you accuse me of making "giant leaps of assumption"? .or boxes people with sectarian tendancies can put people into (like you're trying with sauvignon).

e.g. you have catholics (traditionally assumed to be nationalist) who supported sinn féin in the past shifting over to other parties and candidates based on perceived merit...which means not every catholic in NI wants reunification to happen -Nothing new there or at least not now - they just want a peaceful and fairer, more equal society and how exactly do you know these are their motives? NOW. You have protestants (traditionally assumed to be unionist) who supported the hardline unionist parties and candidates in the past have shifted over to other candidates and parties, which means not every protestant in NI wants to keep clinging on to the apron strings in downing street, bring the british army back and scupper the good friday agreement.

The bottom line is that the shift from sectarianism to voting on merit has happened much sooner than everyone expected - myself included. It's astonishing and in the same breath, it also highlights how pathetic your sectarian jibes at sauvignon are.

Nope - If I were labelling SB a Taig or fenian, that might be sectarian. Labelling someone a Provo or a Nationalist or a Unionist isn't sectarian.

[orfeo]

sorry to interject guys, but, wow...you really are totally consumed with sectarian tendancies, combatlogo. You're completely obsessed with labelling people...or putting them in a box. I won't even begin to try and work out where that's coming from, but, there are two things I would like to say:

(a) your question to sauvignon was as sectarian as you can get. You can't ask someone if they condemn the actions of just one side....that's simply idiotic. As a suggestion, the correct way of asking the question might be do you support PIRA's campaign of violence, the loyalist campaign of violence and the British government sponsored campaign of violence?. The obvious answer is NO.

(b) I assume you haven't been paying attention to what's happened this week... allow me to spell it out for you...in baby steps..

First of all, let's start with the demographics & voting patterns.

While we already know what happened robinson and empey....in this election, loads of people in protestant areas voted for Mark Durkan in Foyle, for Alistair McDonnell in South Belfast, for Margaret Ritchie in South Down. Ditto for for Michelle Gildernew (probably because they were appalled at the blatant sectarianism of the "Unionist Unity" campaign.) Even gerry adams was taken aback at the amount of unionists who voted for him in his constituency. The reason? because he got things done for them on a constituency level. Or to quote him from the belfast telegraph: "Its not so much they voted for Sinn Fein, but they told us so because Sinn Fein had done more for them than the unionist parties. I don't want to exaggerate this. It is small, but it is significant. It most comes from a section of working class people." - full article

Quite a lot of people in catholic areas voted for Lady Hermon, for Ian Óg in North Antrim to keep Mad Jim out, and quite possibly also - bizarre as it may seem - for Singin' Willie McCrea (the guy Sauvignon mentioned earlier) in South Antrim (probably to give the finger to the Tories).

The lesson to be garnered from this is: Leaving aside Daniel O'Connell and a few others, traditional Unionism (like nationalism) was always purely defined by religion. NOT ANY MORE. If you are struggling to get your head around that fact, it means the voters on both sides of the fence have MOVED ON. What's spectacular about it is that it's happened so soon. everyone expected at least another generation of two before this scenario came about. Leaving aside the obvious schaudenfreude at seeing Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson and Reg "let's bring the british army back" Empey losing their seats....that's what is so exciting about what happened this week.

There's no going back to the old ways and traditional Unionism (and nationalism) is just going to have to come to terms with that.

If the penny still hasn't dropped, combatlogo....here's another way of looking at it.

You are making giant leaps of assumption towards sauvignon....and lamely trying to compartmentalise him...e.g. he's either a provo or not based on your warped logic.....what the election this week has illustrated so well is that it's not two sides anymore....or boxes people with sectarian tendancies can put people into (like you're trying with sauvignon).

e.g. you have catholics (traditionally assumed to be nationalist) who supported sinn féin in the past shifting over to other parties and candidates based on perceived merit...which means not every catholic in NI wants reunification to happen - or at least not now - they just want a peaceful and fairer, more equal society NOW. You have protestants (traditionally assumed to be protestant) who supported the hardline unionist parties and candidates in the past have shifted over to other candidates and parties, which means not every protestant in NI wants to keep clinging on to the apron strings in downing street, bring the british army back and scupper the good friday agreement.

The bottom line is that the shift from sectarianism to voting on merit has happened much sooner than everyone expected - myself included. It's astonishing and in the same breath, it also highlights how pathetic your sectarian jibes at sauvignon are.

Tell me Myles , were you born this pompous and condescending or did it come with age ?

LOL. my patience threshold for sectarianism, particularly when it's accompanied by ignorance and narrow-minded views, is pretty low, Orfeo, but hey, thanks for your wonderful contribution to this thread....it's really moved the discussion on quite a bit. Don't you think?

My apologies, my mistake ,I taught it was a sermon from The Book Of Myles with occasional interjections from the audience ! But ok now that I am aware that it is a discussion I will try harder and endeavor to move it on a bit ,- to draw any conclusions such a short time after the election is premature and to say

the shift from sectaranianism to voting on merit

is just downright naive

[MylesNaGapoleen]

....to draw any conclusions such a short time after the election is premature and to say

the shift from sectaranianism to voting on merit

is just downright naive

you maybe right...perhaps I'm being too optimistic in my interpretation of the results. some commentators have remarked that there was a lot of tactical voting going on..which may appear, on the surface, as a good thing....but many are (understandably) taking a pinch of salt.

There have been some genuine shifts away from sectarian voting...and while I agree it isn't seismic...I would argue it is very significant.

As an example...unionist voters didn't react to the same old "smash sinn féin" rallying call from the DUP/UUP campaigns as we might expect. They appear to have seen through that sectarian rhetoric....and as one commentator observed...it was a stupid strategy, especially considering the DUP/UUP are sitting in government with sinn féin. Equally significant is that the unionist vote didn't switch to the TUV...who were presenting themselves as even more hardline than Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson and reg "let's bring the british army back" Empey. Fair enough, that switch may have been tactical, but, I suppose we'll find out soon enough...the next assembly election isn't until next may..but, I imagine the alliance party and sinn fein would love to have it next week.

out of curiosity..you've made it clear that you think my take on it is naive, but, how did you interpret unionists voting for gerry adams and robinson/empey losing their seats? A blip on the landscape and everyone will return to type?

[Sauvignon Blank]

sorry to interject guys, but, wow...you really are totally consumed with sectarian tendancies, combatlogo. You're completely obsessed with labelling people...or putting them in a box. I won't even begin to try and work out where that's coming from, but, there are two things I would like to say: Please, I'd love to hear your pop psychology psychobaable analysis. I'm sectarian because I loathe the IRA? I think we're back on Planet Myles.

(a) your question to sauvignon was as sectarian as you can get. You can't ask someone if they condemn the actions of just one side....that's simply idiotic. As a suggestion, the correct way of asking the question might be do you support PIRA's campaign of violence, the loyalist campaign of violence and the British government sponsored campaign of violence?. The obvious answer is NO. Who the fcuk are you to limit the terms of refernce of the debate? I'll ask any question I please.

(b) I assume you haven't been paying attention to what's happened this week... allow me to spell it out for you...in baby steps..

First of all, let's start with the demographics & voting patterns.

While we already know what happened robinson and empey....in this election, loads of people in protestant areas voted for Mark Durkan in Foyle, for Alistair McDonnell in South Belfast, for Margaret Ritchie in South Down. Ditto for for Michelle Gildernew (probably because they were appalled at the blatant sectarianism of the "Unionist Unity" campaign.) Supposition based on zero evidence Even gerry adams was taken aback at the amount of unionists who voted for him in his constituency. The reason? because he got things done for them on a constituency level. Or to quote him from the belfast telegraph: "Its not so much they voted for Sinn Fein, but they told us so because Sinn Fein had done more for them than the unionist parties. I don't want to exaggerate this. It is small, but it is significant. It most comes from a section of working class people." - full article

Quite a lot of people in catholic areas voted for Lady Hermon, for Ian Óg in North Antrim to keep Mad Jim out, and quite possibly also - bizarre as it may seem - for Singin' Willie McCrea (the guy Sauvignon mentioned earlier) in South Antrim (probably to give the finger to the Tories).

The lesson to be garnered from this is: Leaving aside Daniel O'Connell and a few others, Err, Daniel O'Connell was a Catholic who led the campaign for Catholic Emancipation and a rather less successful campaign to repeal the Act of Union - are you telling me you actually thought he was a Protestant? traditional Unionism (like nationalism) was always purely defined by religion. NOT ANY MORE. If you are struggling to get your head around that fact, it means the voters on both sides of the fence have MOVED ON. What's spectacular about it is that it's happened so soon. everyone expected at least another generation or two before this scenario came about. Leaving aside the obvious schaudenfreude at seeing Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson and Reg "let's bring the british army back" Empey losing their seats....that's what is so exciting about what happened this week.

There's no going back to the old ways and traditional Unionism (and nationalism) is just going to have to come to terms with that.

If the penny still hasn't dropped, combatlogo....here's another way of looking at it.

Cross-religious tactical voting has always been there - Protestants in W Belfast voted for Joe Hendron in 1992 (provoking apoplexy from Adams and SF/IRA ); Catholics on Rathlin voted for Paisley Sr because they figured he looked after them in terms of constituency work.

What data are you using to extrapolate these sweeping claims that NI is now a post-sectarian Shangri-La? The election's less than a week old FFS!
You are making giant leaps of assumption towards sauvignon....and lamely trying to compartmentalise him...e.g. he's either a provo or not based on your warped logic....Well, he is either a Provo or he's not, just as he's either a Leinster fan or he's not..what the election this week has illustrated so well is that it's not two sides anymore...and you accuse me of making "giant leaps of assumption"? .or boxes people with sectarian tendancies can put people into (like you're trying with sauvignon).

e.g. you have catholics (traditionally assumed to be nationalist) who supported sinn féin in the past shifting over to other parties and candidates based on perceived merit...which means not every catholic in NI wants reunification to happen -Nothing new there or at least not now - they just want a peaceful and fairer, more equal society and how exactly do you know these are their motives? NOW. You have protestants (traditionally assumed to be unionist) who supported the hardline unionist parties and candidates in the past have shifted over to other candidates and parties, which means not every protestant in NI wants to keep clinging on to the apron strings in downing street, bring the british army back and scupper the good friday agreement.

The bottom line is that the shift from sectarianism to voting on merit has happened much sooner than everyone expected - myself included. It's astonishing and in the same breath, it also highlights how pathetic your sectarian jibes at sauvignon are.

Nope - If I were labelling SB a Taig or fenian, that might be sectarian. Labelling someone a Provo or a Nationalist or a Unionist isn't sectarian.

In your case you are just a Liar and clutching at straws in the face of mounting evidence put forward.

Carry on...........

[combatlogo]

In your case you are just a Liar and clutching at straws in the face of mounting evidence put forward.

Carry on...........

More inane drivel...what lies have I written? No idea why you're capitalising "liar", it's Englis, not German.

I notice you still refuse to answer a very simple question.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

sorry to interject guys, but, wow...you really are totally consumed with sectarian tendancies, combatlogo. You're completely obsessed with labelling people...or putting them in a box. I won't even begin to try and work out where that's coming from, but, there are two things I would like to say:

(a) your question to sauvignon was as sectarian as you can get. You can't ask someone if they condemn the actions of just one side....that's simply idiotic. As a suggestion, the correct way of asking the question might be do you support PIRA's campaign of violence, the loyalist campaign of violence and the British government sponsored campaign of violence?. The obvious answer is NO.

I'm sectarian because I loathe the IRA? I think we're back on Planet Myles. Who the fcuk are you to limit the terms of reference of the debate? I'll ask any question I please.

Relax, Combatlogo, I'm not limiting the terms of any reference. It was just a suggestion...(I've highlighted the text in purple to make it easier for you to read)....that, an objective observer might say it is more logical to say something like "I loathe any organisation involved in violence and murder"....rather than the sectarian viewpoint, which is usually "I loathe the [insert name of organisation involved in violence and murder]"..

If I were labelling SB a Taig or fenian, that might be sectarian. Labelling someone a Provo or a Nationalist or a Unionist isn't sectarian.

are you for real? do you have any grasp on what sectarian actually means? something doesn't become sectarian because you use a derogatory word, combatlogo.

Leaving aside Daniel O'Connell and a few others traditional Unionism (like nationalism) was always purely defined by religion. NOT ANY MORE. If you are struggling to get your head around that fact, it means the voters on both sides of the fence have MOVED ON. What's spectacular about it is that it's happened so soon. everyone expected at least another generation or two before this scenario came about.

Err, Daniel O'Connell was a Catholic who led the campaign for Catholic Emancipation and a rather less successful campaign to repeal the Act of Union - are you telling me you actually thought he was a Protestant?

I know daniel oc was a catholic....combatlogo. I never said he was a protstant...he sided with british rule in ireland during the 1798 rebellions and famously wanted the creation of a kingdom of ireland with queen victoria at it's head. Why are you trying to put words into my mouth to prove no point?

Cross-religious tactical voting has always been there - Protestants in W Belfast voted for Joe Hendron in 1992 (provoking apoplexy from Adams and SF/IRA ); Catholics on Rathlin voted for Paisley Sr because they figured he looked after them in terms of constituency work. What data are you using to extrapolate these sweeping claims that NI is now a post-sectarian Shangri-La? The election's less than a week old FFS!

I'm not claiming that NI is a post-sectarian Shangri-la...and the election maybe less than a week old, but, the results are still the same, combatlogo.

I already mentioned that some tactical voting maybe attributed to some of the stranger voting patterns in the election, but, that aside, it's the significance of unionists, en masse, rejecting both Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson and Reg "Let's bring the british army back" Empey, that, for me, was more indicative that there are signs that the electorate is moving away from sectarianism much swifter than everyone imagined.

What's curious about your remarks is that you appear upset that this is the case....it's almost as if you preferred it when everyone was deep in their respective trenches - lobbing insults and sometimes bombs at each other.

[combatlogo]

Unionists en masse haven't rejected Peter Robinson - those in his constituency did, not because of his political views but because of his dodgy financial dealings, expenses and Iris' shennanigans.

Right, Peter Robinson is a Unionist, I've labelled him as such...am I now sectarian?

The UUP only had one seat in the last election - it's hardly a surprise they won none in this and that's probably attributable more to their disasterous link to the Tories than anything else.

[orfeo]

....to draw any conclusions such a short time after the election is premature and to say

the shift from sectaranianism to voting on merit

is just downright naive

you maybe right...perhaps I'm being too optimistic in my interpretation of the results. some commentators have remarked that there was a lot of tactical voting going on..which may appear, on the surface, as a good thing....but many are (understandably) taking a pinch of salt.

There have been some genuine shifts away from sectarian voting...and while I agree it isn't seismic...I would argue it is very significant.

As an example...unionist voters didn't react to the same old "smash sinn féin" rallying call from the DUP/UUP campaigns as we might expect. They appear to have seen through that sectarian rhetoric....and as one commentator observed...it was a stupid strategy, especially considering the DUP/UUP are sitting in government with sinn féin. Equally significant is that the unionist vote didn't switch to the TUV...who were presenting themselves as even more hardline than Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson and reg "let's bring the british army back" Empey. Fair enough, that switch may have been tactical, but, I suppose we'll find out soon enough...the next assembly election isn't until next may..but, I imagine the alliance party and sinn fein would love to have it next week.

out of curiosity..you've made it clear that you think my take on it is naive, but, how did you interpret unionists voting for gerry adams and robinson/empey losing their seats? A blip on the landscape and everyone will return to type?

We are fast approaching the 100 anniversary of the foundation of this state and we still vote along civil wars lines ! Hopefully this current recession will at last put all that cr@p to bed and we can join the ranks of ''mature'' democracies and align left/right/centre-right of left etc. I remember elections in the 1980's when ''77'' was still being painted on the roads all over the country, and not just in out of the way places but in figures 20ft in length in a repeated pattern down the main streets of cities and towns !

To think our northern breathren are any different is as I say naive . And please don't say that S/F are of the left , that is just incidental as it was the prevailing ethos when this current crop were young men in the 60's & 70's and Vietnam/PLO/Baader/ etc etc ad nauseum were all the rage. Their primary identifier is ''the national question'' ,anything else is incidental.

[combatlogo]

We are fast approaching the 100 anniversary of the foundation of this state and we still vote along civil wars lines ! Hopefully this current recession will at last put all that cr@p to bed and we can join the ranks of ''mature'' democracies and align left/right/centre-right of left etc. I remember elections in the 1980's when ''77'' was still being painted on the roads all over the country, and not just in out of the way places but in figures 20ft in length in a repeated pattern down the main streets of cities and towns !

To think our northern breathren are any different is as I say naive . And please don't say that S/F are of the left , that is just incidental as it was the prevailing ethos when this current crop were young men in the 60's & 70's and Vietnam/PLO/Baader/ etc etc ad nauseum were all the rage. Their primary identifier is ''the national question'' ,anything else is incidental.

True to a point. I'd say the vast majority of people would have no idea what the "77" refers to (number of Republican prisoners executed by the Free State during the Civil War) - I don't know whether that's good (putting Civil War behind us) or bad (ignorance of our history).

Disagree to an extent re SF - I think the left wing element is important as is expressing "solidarity" for overseas causes. Then again, their raison d'etre has been impacted significantly given that the National Question has been settled for the time being.

[orfeo]

We are fast approaching the 100 anniversary of the foundation of this state and we still vote along civil wars lines ! Hopefully this current recession will at last put all that cr@p to bed and we can join the ranks of ''mature'' democracies and align left/right/centre-right of left etc. I remember elections in the 1980's when ''77'' was still being painted on the roads all over the country, and not just in out of the way places but in figures 20ft in length in a repeated pattern down the main streets of cities and towns !

To think our northern breathren are any different is as I say naive . And please don't say that S/F are of the left , that is just incidental as it was the prevailing ethos when this current crop were young men in the 60's & 70's and Vietnam/PLO/Baader/ etc etc ad nauseum were all the rage. Their primary identifier is ''the national question'' ,anything else is incidental.

True to a point. I'd say the vast majority of people would have no idea what the "77" refers to (number of Republican prisoners executed by the Free State during the Civil War) - I don't know whether that's good (putting Civil War behind us) or bad (ignorance of our history).

Disagree to an extent re SF - I think the left wing element is important as is expressing "solidarity" for overseas causes. Then again, their raison d'etre has been impacted significantly given that the National Question has been settled for the time being.

I don't know , you would have taught that the times we live in SF poll ratings in the republic would have shot through the roof , but they are actually falling .It is a if people really know their left wing policies are a hangover from earlier times like the wooly jumpers and the beards and they are really clueless on any sort of economic issue. When push comes to shove they are ok for a protest vote and that is it. To a certain extent they are seen as just a single issue canditate, like the hospital/incerator/mororway people but just on a national scale.

I take your point on the '77' but it was still being used in 1980 - 70 years after independance. I don't think Enniskillen/Miami Showband etc will be erased from the public conciousness any faster. All we can hope for is something similar to those French and Germans in 1956 or 58 when organising the European Coal & Steel Community hated each others guts but could see it was the only way to avoid continuous wars. Do we have men of the vision the like of Jean Monnet ? That is a question of a different order

[MylesNaGapoleen]

Unionists en masse haven't rejected Peter Robinson - those in his constituency did, not because of his political views but because of his dodgy financial dealings, expenses and Iris' shennanigans.

LOL. I hope it's not too embarrassing for you if I point out that Unionists outside Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson constituency were UNABLE TO VOTE in his constituency.

I also hope it doesn't add to your embarrassment if I point out that they (the majority of Unionists in PRs constituency)voted for the Alliance Party...which is a cross community party...instead of voting for other unionist candidates.

[combatlogo]

Unionists en masse haven't rejected Peter Robinson - those in his constituency did, not because of his political views but because of his dodgy financial dealings, expenses and Iris' shennanigans.

LOL. I hope it's not too embarrassing for you if I point out that Unionists outside Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson constituency were UNABLE TO VOTE in his constituency.

I also hope it doesn't add to your embarrassment if I point out that they (the majority of Unionists in PRs constituency)voted for the Alliance Party...which is a cross community party...instead of voting for other unionist candidates.

Why do I bother?

it's the significance of unionists, en masse, rejecting... Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson

I clearly missed the bit where you descibed all these Unionists (en masse, mind you) as being confined to East Belfast.

What relevance does the fact that they voted for an Alliance candidate have anything to do with what I wrote?

You're a bluffer and a blusterer - you're pontificating away on here only to row back furiously when it's pointed out to you how ridiculous your claim that "The bottom line is that the shift from sectarianism to voting on merit has happened " was. As I said, the fact that you actually said Maggie T relied on UUP votes in the Commons shows you to be a spoofer.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

LOL. I hope it's not too embarrassing for you if I point out that Unionists outside Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson constituency were UNABLE TO VOTE in his constituency.

I also hope it doesn't add to your embarrassment if I point out that they (the majority of Unionists in PRs constituency)voted for the Alliance Party...which is a cross community party...instead of voting for other unionist candidates.

I clearly missed the bit where you descibed all these Unionists (en masse, mind you) as being confined to East Belfast.

Well, I assumed you would understand the concept of constituencies. how wrong was I?

What relevance does the fact that they voted for an Alliance candidate have anything to do with what I wrote?

you asserted that unionists voters en masse (in east belfast!) dumped Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson out on his ear, because of his missus banging a 19-year old, his expenses shenanigans and as you put it, "dodgy financial dealings". that may well be true....although you don't put forward any evidence or proof of that assertion. In other words, those unionist voters are "still the same", they just sacked a dodgy politician but still support unionism. however, if you look at the results, you will see that unionists voted overwhelmingly in favour of a non-unionist party i.e. the ALLIANCE Part which is a CROSS COMMUNITY party, combatlogo.

I can explain the relevance of that, but, I'm afraid I can't understand it for you.

[combatlogo]

Well, I assumed you would understand the concept of constituencies. how wrong was I?

Well if it only happened in one constituency, then pace what you claimed, it's not very significant, is it?

What relevance does the fact that they voted for an Alliance candidate have anything to do with what I wrote?

you asserted that unionists voters en masse (in east belfast!) dumped Peter "let's scrap devolution" Robinson out on his ear, because of his missus banging a 19-year old, his expenses shenanigans and as you put it, "dodgy financial dealings". that may well be true....although you don't put forward any evidence or proof of that assertion. In other words, those unionist voters are "still the same", they just sacked a dodgy politician but still support unionism. however, if you look at the results, you will see that unionists voted overwhelmingly in favour of a non-unionist party i.e. the ALLIANCE Part which is a CROSS COMMUNITY party, combatlogo.

I can explain the relevance of that, but, I'm afraid I can't understand it for you.[/quote]

Right, so the DUP vote collapsed spectacularly in one constituency and held up well enough in the others not to lose any other seats - I'd say that's pretty good evidence that Robbo's travails were the cause of his defeat.

33% of those who voted in East Belfast voted for the DUP while 21% did so for the UCUNF and 5% for the TUV - that's 59% Myles, versus 37% for the Alliance. Do you want to revisit your claim that "unionists voted overwhelmingly in favour of a non-unionist party "?

How do you know that all of those who voted for the Alliance were traditional Unionists? I'm sure it included many Catholics who wanted Robbo out and who would otherwise have voted SF/SDLP.

You're repeating your rather pathetic attempts at quips and put-downs Myles, must try harder.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

Right, so the DUP vote collapsed spectacularly in one constituency and held up well enough in the others not to lose any other seats - I'd say that's pretty good evidence that Robbo's travails were the cause of his defeat.

33% of those who voted in East Belfast voted for the DUP while 21% did so for the UCUNF and 5% for the TUV - that's 59% Myles, versus 37% for the Alliance. Do you want to revisit your claim that "unionists voted overwhelmingly in favour of a non-unionist party "?

How do you know that all of those who voted for the Alliance were traditional Unionists? I'm sure it included many Catholics who wanted Robbo out and who would otherwise have voted SF/SDLP.

I know because Peter "Let's scrap devolution" Robinson held the seat for decades. Allow me to explain, in baby steps for you.

The MAJORITY of people in East Belfast voted for Peter "Let's scrap devolution" Robinson for decades. Through the height of the troubles. I take it you would agree that it was Unionist voters voting for the Unionist Peter Robinson. if you have understood all that, great. the key is that those same UNIONIST voters, who for years voted for the unionist candidate peter robinson didn't vote for peter robinson last week. In fact they didn't vote for a unionist candidate at all....they voted for Long from the alliance party.

Looking at the bigger, wider picture. (That means the rest of Northern Ireland, combatlogo) here's some of the facts based on the results from last weeks election:

• All the unionist leaders failed to win a seat
• Unionists only hold 9 out of the 18 seats
• Unionism now has only 1 MP in Belfast down from 3 out of 4 ten years ago
• North Belfast is only 2000 votes away from electing a nationalist MP
• Upper Bann is 4,000 votes from electing a nationalist MP. This could happen within 5 or 10 years.

there is one other interesting observation to be made...i.e. the total nationalist vote on Thursday night was less than 0.2% higher that it was five years ago. that's a movement of less than two people in a thousand in five years. It's clear that the nationalist vote is flatlining...but it is impressive when you compare it to the unionist vote which has fragmented and even migrated to non-unionist parties in that same period. Someone else mentioned the recession and a shambolic economy as a contributing factor and I agree..it's plausible and likely that the nationalist vote will similarly fragment and migrate to non-nationalist parties over the next few years.

that's just my own opinion, combatlogo, but, hand-on-heart, who would have predicted the results we saw last friday?