Norn Iron leaders debate on bbc 1 last night

[MylesNaGapoleen]

anyone else watch it?

While I'm not a big fan of sinn fein (I think their economic/other policies are naive at best) Adams was by far the clear winner. Ritchie (is that her name?) was way out of her depth.

Robinson was a complete shambles. He came across as if he knows "the game's up"....particularly when the chair, Mark Caruthers pinged him on the expenses/wife stuff. he SO didn't want to be there and it showed.

Reg Empey struggled, but, rammed home his point about the tories playing the "Orange card", like so many others before, notably winston churchills father, randolph and margaret thatcher. If that wasn't bad enough, he was reponsible for the biggest gaffe of the night...i.e. talking up the idea of the british army returning to the streets of norn iron. adams dealt with it brilliantly...by laughing and saying "catch yerself on" to Empey. NOBODY, on both sides of the fence, want the british army back on the streets of norn iron....apart from a few ageing unionists, who still have that little-britain-esque rule britannia postcard image of britishness, which is long gone.

Overall it was more entertaining than I thought it would be. Later on, I had to switch over when ritchie was talking...sorry..I meant reading from her crib notes...her rhetoric was so cliché-ridden it defied belief. You know..stuff that might have looked great on paper, but, sounded clunky when said out loud.

Adams the winner by far....biggest loser was reg empey, who should have made more out of the fact that robinson is finished as a politician. ritchie was like a cross between sarah palin and that camp guy who does the intros on UTV.

[mfjoc]

Anyprogram to do with Norn Iron especially if I hear Tommy Gorman's voice merits an immediate change of channel.

[Broken Wing]

Didn't see the debate but according to Newstalk last night an opinion poll out today shows SF/SDLP out polling DUP/UUP for the first time. This election could be interesting.

[rooster]

anyone else watch it?

Probably no one up here, always wondered who they make these programmes for now I know
Never listened to a political debate since I sat in a seat behind Seamus Mallon and David Trimble coming back from London, pair of them joked and laughed the whole way home and I then watched them an hour later looking like they would cut each others throats in a televised debate and keeping both of their tribes happy in the process.

[Sauvignon Blank]

Missed it Myles unfortunately.
Sounds like the 'same old same old'.
Adams rarely loses out in a debate. Hardly surprising when he's up against stagnant Unionists.
Robinson is damaged goods and clearly lacks credibility and more importantly the required support to spearhead their usual 'No to everything' campaign.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

anyone else watch it?

Probably no one up here, always wondered who they make these programmes for now I know
Never listened to a political debate since I sat in a seat behind Seamus Mallon and David Trimble coming back from London, pair of them joked and laughed the whole way home and I then watched them an hour later looking like they would cut each others throats in a televised debate and keeping both of their tribes happy in the process.

That's funny, but, so true.

There's a new breed of unionists emerging that sound promising....particularly an ex-irish rugby player by the name of Trevor Ringland. For the kids out there, he was a superb winger for the irish team (and a lion, if I remember correctly) in the 80s. When the current generation of incumbent unionists fade away, I can see things improving up north. Ditto for the other side of the fence. The emerging younger generation appear to be more than willing to let go of the tribal baggage and get on with things.

I used to be like the other poster (who can't watch programmes about Norn Iron politics) but for some reason I find the recent "consensus politics" thing fascinating. Having lived in scandinavia for a while I've seen how consensus politics works very well. It's not perfect, but, it works. The UK appears to be catching up a little...with the likelihood of a hung parliament looming this friday, a coalition gov. is on the cards. What's funny about the norn iron political debates is that they are still entrenched in punch n judy style presentation...yet, all four leaders on the show last nigh are all in "government" together. No opposition or ruling parties, as such, in many respects, it's the mother of all coalitions.

That said..if I was living up there and had a vote, I would be very disheartened. the SDLP used to offer a "third option", but, their leader is so clearly out of her depth, they will be lucky to get 2 seats.

the worst case scenario for people on the island of ireland is if cameron needs the ulster unionists to form a majority this friday and plays the orange card...however, Empey screwed up big time last night by focussing on the question "should we bring the british army back to northern ireland [because of dissident republicans]?". Even the most fervent unionists would baulk at that idea....and what will obviously follow, so perhaps he has missed a chance for the "conservative uup" or whatever they call themselves now, to capitalise on Robinsons shenanigans with expenses, the shenanigans with his wife and not forgetting, the busiest coffee shop in belfast.

[combatlogo]

Missed it Myles unfortunately.
Sounds like the 'same old same old'.
Adams rarely loses out in a debate. Hardly surprising when he's up against stagnant Unionists.
Robinson is damaged goods and clearly lacks credibility and more importantly the required support to spearhead their usual 'No to everything' campaign.

Yeah, the terrorist scumbag served up a rhetorical tour de force during the 2007 leaders' debate down here alright.

"Stagnant Unionists"? Was it just these Unionists, in a debate you didn't see or are all Unionists always stagnant?

"No to everything campaign"? Err, they said yes to government with SF/IRA, didn't they?

[MylesNaGapoleen]

Missed it Myles unfortunately.
Sounds like the 'same old same old'.
Adams rarely loses out in a debate. Hardly surprising when he's up against stagnant Unionists.
Robinson is damaged goods and clearly lacks credibility and more importantly the required support to spearhead their usual 'No to everything' campaign.

Yeah, the terrorist scumbag served up a rhetorical tour de force during the 2007 leaders' debate down here alright.

"Stagnant Unionists"? Was it just these Unionists, in a debate you didn't see or are all Unionists always stagnant?

"No to everything campaign"? Err, they said yes to government with SF/IRA, didn't they?

Sauvignon is right when he describes the incumbent ulster unionists as "stagnant". Anyone with a passing interest, in NI affairs, will have observed how they are stalling progress, at every juncture. not just with police & justice devolution, but, across the board.

Last nights debate displayed a more worrying side of ulster unionism....and I deliberately describe it as "ulster unionism" because it bears no resemblance to unionism in the republic of Ireland and in the same breath, my friends/collegues in England find the "ulster unionist" postcard view of "britishness" completely alien and unrecognisable. Last night they displayed a significant backward step in thinking. for example, bringing the british army back to ulster was a key topic for both robinson and empey. Which is a throwback to the 1970s version of Ulster Unionism.

in many respects, their views have more in common with the british national party than it does with the tories. Empey also drove home his pans to play the "Orange card"...the last time that was played was in the 80s when margaret thatcher needed them for a majority...and we all know what followed that. Robinson was a complete shambles and it was hard to grasp what exactly the DUP policies are...he was so busy defending his expenses, nepotism and other inappropriate activity.

Thankfully, judging by the lack of support the BNP got when they tried to establish a base in Northern Ireland and put forward candidates for the elections recently, the ulster unionist line isn't being taken up by many. I don't envisage a bastille style revolt by the unionists on friday when the results are announced...even if sinn fein end up as the leading party in the assembly (which is a possibility).

While I'm no big fan of sinn fein policies...I don't subscribe to your ad hominem against adams. I'm not saying he wasn't a terrorist, but, whether you like it or not, he had the vision to get out of terrorism in the 80s/90s, move towards dialogue and drag others with him. I know it's difficult to look at it objectively, but, in other words, your "terrorist scumbag" is the same guy who persuaded a lot of people to lay down their weapons...suspend their bombing campaigns and general mayhem to give the political process a chance.

on a positive note, I think we're seeing the last gasps of ulster unionism in the rule britannia sense....once these guys mosey on, new, more progressive unionists like Trevor Ringland are coming along.

[combatlogo]

Missed it Myles unfortunately.
Sounds like the 'same old same old'.
Adams rarely loses out in a debate. Hardly surprising when he's up against stagnant Unionists.
Robinson is damaged goods and clearly lacks credibility and more importantly the required support to spearhead their usual 'No to everything' campaign.

Yeah, the terrorist scumbag served up a rhetorical tour de force during the 2007 leaders' debate down here alright.

"Stagnant Unionists"? Was it just these Unionists, in a debate you didn't see or are all Unionists always stagnant?

"No to everything campaign"? Err, they said yes to government with SF/IRA, didn't they?

Sauvignon is right when he describes the incumbent ulster unionists as "stagnant". Anyone with a passing interest, in NI affairs, will have observed how they are stalling progress, at every juncture. not just with police & justice devolution, but, across the board.

Last nights debate displayed a more worrying side of ulster unionism....and I deliberately describe it as "ulster unionism" because it bears no resemblance to unionism in the republic of Ireland and in the same breath, my friends/collegues in England find the "ulster unionist" postcard view of "britishness" completely alien and unrecognisable. Last night they displayed a significant backward step in thinking. for example, bringing the british army back to ulster was a key topic for both robinson and empey. Which is a throwback to the 1970s version of Ulster Unionism.

in many respects, their views have more in common with the british national party than it does with the tories. Empey also drove home his pans to play the "Orange card"...the last time that was played was in the 80s when margaret thatcher needed them for a majority...and we all know what followed that. Robinson was a complete shambles and it was hard to grasp what exactly the DUP policies are...he was so busy defending his expenses, nepotism and other inappropriate activity.

Thankfully, judging by the lack of support the BNP got when they tried to establish a base in Northern Ireland and put forward candidates for the elections recently, the ulster unionist line isn't being taken up by many. I don't envisage a bastille style revolt by the unionists on friday when the results are announced...even if sinn fein end up as the leading party in the assembly (which is a possibility).

While I'm no big fan of sinn fein policies...I don't subscribe to your ad hominem against adams. I'm not saying he wasn't a terrorist, but, whether you like it or not, he had the vision to get out of terrorism in the 80s/90s, move towards dialogue and drag others with him. I know it's difficult to look at it objectively, but, in other words, your "terrorist scumbag" is the same guy who persuaded a lot of people to lay down their weapons...suspend their bombing campaigns and general mayhem to give the political process a chance.

on a positive note, I think we're seeing the last gasps of ulster unionism in the rule britannia sense....once these guys mosey on, new, more progressive unionists like Trevor Ringland are coming along.

When you say stalling progrees, do you actually mean oppose SF policies? You're attacking Unionists for being Unionists. What does "progressive unionsits" mean exactly?

I'd love to hear about this Unionism in the RoI whic you mention!

What exactly do you mean by "play the Orange Card"? It's mainland politician who do thta, not NI ones, going back to Randolph Churchill's introduction of the phrase.

Thatcher never needed the UUP for Commons support, John Major's 1992-97 government did.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

When you say stalling progrees, do you actually mean oppose SF policies? You're attacking Unionists for being Unionists.

nope and I wasn't talking about unionism..I was specifically talking about ULSTER unionism...there's a difference. Getting back to your question...and as an example, ULSTER unionists signed up to the devolution of policing & justice years ago. They have been deliberately stalling the process and failed to deliver on their agreement. That's not attacking unionists for being unionists. It's criticising ULSTER unionism for consistently throwing spanners in the works and holding back progress.

What does "progressive unionsits" mean exactly?

I was referring to Trevor Ringland, in particular, as an example of progressive ULSTER Unionism. In other words, unionism looking forward instead of backwards. Did you see the debate last night? What you had there was an example of backward thinking unionism, focussing on bringing the british army back to the streets of ulster and strenghtening the ties between downing street and NI...the complete opposite of what they signed up to in the GFA (good friday agreement)...which is all about full devolution from downing street, leading to autonomy and ultimately self determination. A huge majority of people in Northern Ireland (and down south if you remember), from all sides of the fence, voted overwhelmingly in favour of the GFA.

I'd love to hear about this Unionism in the RoI whic you mention!

unionists are like any other europeans combatlogo, they are free to travel throughout the european union like any other EU citizen.

As an example, I have a unionist friend living in the republic of ireland, who also takes part in orange day parades on the 12th down south...there are many, in case you didn't know and they all go off without a hitch, each year. I might add. he and many of his unionist collegues are anti-monarchs and some want to replace it with a british republic. Others are indifferent.

He doesn't recognise the brand of unionism being presented by the ulster unionists. Ditto for my english pals who find their vision of "the union" or "britain" ghastly, to put it mildly, akin to a little britain sketch where they all worship the queenie and hum rule britannia every night before they go to sleep, tucked into their union jack duvets.

What exactly do you mean by "play the Orange Card"? It's mainland politician who do thta, not NI ones, going back to Randolph Churchill's introduction of the phrase. Thatcher never needed the UUP for Commons support, John Major's 1992-97 government did.

The "orange card" is very simple, combatlogo and two parties are required to play it....it's not like a game of snap. You maybe right about thatcher not needing the UUP for a majority, but, that doesn't mean she didn't play "the orange card". Ulster unionists (the DUP and/or other unionist parties) helped thatcher drive through some key bills in parliament during her reign. You are correct about john major though. Tory dependence on unionist votes stymied all political movement in the North during the 90s...until tony blair swept in with a massive majority and didn't need them.

We can agree to disagree on the point of thatcher playing the orange card...either way, the bottom line is if you heard what was coming out of empey last night....and factor in how tight a squeeze it will be for the tories to get a majority on friday...it's not a pretty picture that's being painted. Particularly when there's dissidents frustrated with the stop-start progress in the assembly upping a gear and carrying out bombing/execution campaigns.

Incidentally...it's your "terrorist scumbag" who will probably get it in the neck first, should the political process stall again after friday. It's unlikely...I can't see the Conservative UUPs getting more than3 seats, but, it is a possibility.

[Sauvignon Blank]

Sauvignon is right when he describes the incumbent ulster unionists as "stagnant". Anyone with a passing interest, in NI affairs, will have observed how they are stalling progress, at every juncture. not just with police & justice devolution, but, across the board.

Last nights debate displayed a more worrying side of ulster unionism....and I deliberately describe it as "ulster unionism" because it bears no resemblance to unionism in the republic of Ireland and in the same breath, my friends/collegues in England find the "ulster unionist" postcard view of "britishness" completely alien and unrecognisable. Last night they displayed a significant backward step in thinking. for example, bringing the british army back to ulster was a key topic for both robinson and empey. Which is a throwback to the 1970s version of Ulster Unionism.


in many respects, their views have more in common with the british national party than it does with the tories. Empey also drove home his pans to play the "Orange card"...the last time that was played was in the 80s when margaret thatcher needed them for a majority...and we all know what followed that. Robinson was a complete shambles and it was hard to grasp what exactly the DUP policies are...he was so busy defending his expenses, nepotism and other inappropriate activity.

Thankfully, judging by the lack of support the BNP got when they tried to establish a base in Northern Ireland and put forward candidates for the elections recently, the ulster unionist line isn't being taken up by many. I don't envisage a bastille style revolt by the unionists on friday when the results are announced...even if sinn fein end up as the leading party in the assembly (which is a possibility).

While I'm no big fan of sinn fein policies...I don't subscribe to your ad hominem against adams. I'm not saying he wasn't a terrorist, but, whether you like it or not, he had the vision to get out of terrorism in the 80s/90s, move towards dialogue and drag others with him. I know it's difficult to look at it objectively, but, in other words, your "terrorist scumbag" is the same guy who persuaded a lot of people to lay down their weapons...suspend their bombing campaigns and general mayhem to give the political process a chance.

on a positive note, I think we're seeing the last gasps of ulster unionism in the rule britannia sense....once these guys mosey on, new, more progressive unionists like Trevor Ringland are coming along.

A lot of that makes sense Myles but I remain cynical about Ulster Unionism. It would appear their elitist attitude is still prevalent. I remain to be convinced.
I was not aware of Trevor Ringland's association with Unionist politics. TBH I would be very interested to hear his view on certain matters vis a vis A United Ireland, Integrated Schools etc, owing to his career in Irish Rugby and relations in the Republic.

[Sauvignon Blank]

Missed it Myles unfortunately.
Sounds like the 'same old same old'.
Adams rarely loses out in a debate. Hardly surprising when he's up against stagnant Unionists.
Robinson is damaged goods and clearly lacks credibility and more importantly the required support to spearhead their usual 'No to everything' campaign.

Yeah, the terrorist scumbag served up a rhetorical tour de force during the 2007 leaders' debate down here alright.
If you say so. Who am I to argue with a purveyor of such eloquent language and refreshing candour

"Stagnant Unionists"? Was it just these Unionists, in a debate you didn't see or are all Unionists always stagnant?

Those of the unsmiling, unflinching, prone to utter 'NO' quite often, not very inclusive and foam at the mouth with the mere mention of the concept of a 'United Ireland'

"No to everything campaign"? Err, they said yes to government with SF/IRA, didn't they?

Incorrect. 'SF/IRA'- there is no such organisation me aul' bean. Two completely separate entities.
Apart from your goodself, I've only ever heard the term used by such visionaries(ahem) as Paisley, Robinson, Wright, McRea and various Loyalist groups. Give yourself a pat on the back fella, your in good company.

They spoke to Sinn Fein the Political party of which Gerry Adams is the President. And if you know anything about the peace process (which I doubt you do) you will know the Unionists wouldn't sit in the same room as the Nationalists & Republicans whilst the negotiations were ongoing, forcing George Mitchell to move back and forth from room to room playing a 'they said this...they said that...they want that..type of game'.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

I was not aware of Trevor Ringland's association with Unionist politics. TBH I would be very interested to hear his view on certain matters vis a vis A United Ireland, Integrated Schools etc, owing to his career in Irish Rugby and relations in the Republic.

well...if you're interested, he co-wrote a book recently called A Long Peace? The Future of Unionism in Northern Ireland

this is what he said during an interview when he was announced as a candidate for east belfast: "I believe in a new kind of positive unionism that is outward looking and has influence on a national level....there are so many people in the worlds of business, sport, entertainment and the wider community who are turned off by politics here. Those type of people in the unionist community are searching for something different so that is why I got involved."

...which might sound par for the course for a new candidate....but..when you look at his CV (he's not a member of the orange order, nor a member of a loyalist marching organisation...he's also secular in outlook) and read his other comments about the future of unionism...he breaks away from the standard "same old" patter from the UUP/DUP..."I will say or do nothing that would endanger power-sharing....I want the arrangements where Sinn Féin and the SDLP share power with the DUP and UUP to be secure. And while I am a unionist I believe passionately in a shared future between all our people.".

he also launched the one small step campaign in NI which is all about nudging (mostly) unionists to break out of their shell a little....such as reading a newspaper reflecting opposing views, watching a different sport or observing a cultural or religious event celebrated by the other section of the community. sounds twee, but, in the book he co-wrote he's very critical of the orange order and loyalist organisations for encouraging, stirring up and perpetuating sectarian tendancies. Something that's not unique for unionists..the other side of the fence are just as bad, but, the overall vibe from Ringland is very positive and a break away from the same-old, same-old unionist entrenchment.

Anyway...he's up against peter robinson in east belfast...which should be interesting.

[combatlogo]

[Those of the unsmiling, unflinching, prone to utter 'NO' quite often, not very inclusive and foam at the mouth with the mere mention of the concept of a 'United Ireland'

They're Unionists. They oppose a United Ireland. Get over it.

Incorrect. 'SF/IRA'- there is no such organisation me aul' bean. Two completely separate entities.
Apart from your goodself, I've only ever heard the term used by such visionaries(ahem) as Paisley, Robinson, Wright, McRea and various Loyalist groups. Give yourself a pat on the back fella, your (sic) in good company.

At least the politicians you mention are democrats who didn't have a terrorist private army under their control.

Of course SF/IRA are separate entities with no personnel in common and SF was certainly never, ever under the control of the IRA - I've a trans-fluvial structure in a New York City borough to sell you if you believe that. Why do media use the term "Republican movement" then and what do you think they mean by it?

I'd be reluctant to admit supporting the Provos too - it's on the same moral plane as admitting you're in favour of paedophilia or drug-dealing.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

[Those of the unsmiling, unflinching, prone to utter 'NO' quite often, not very inclusive and foam at the mouth with the mere mention of the concept of a 'United Ireland'

They're Unionists. They oppose a United Ireland. Get over it.

I understand where you're coming from, but, broadstroke statements like that about unionism don't apply anymore. Moderate Unionism is in the ascendency in northern ireland at the moment....i.e. unionists who accept that direct rule is not an option anymore but don't like the idea of re-unification with the rest of ireland, for pragmatic reasons (rather than sectarian reasons).

There are also republican unionists...i.e. unionists who are opposed to the monarchy and would like to see it replaced with a republic...where people are citizens, rather than subjects etc.

And of course you have the old-style unionists, who are turning into a caricature of themselves and who would like stronger ties between northern ireland and britain.

Thankfully, the latter are in a minority now...as witnessed by the overwhelming vote in favour of the GFA (good friday agreement) by the unionist community.

At least the politicians you (Sauvignon blanc) mention are democrats who didn't have a terrorist private army under their control.

Of course SF/IRA are separate entities with no personnel in common and SF was certainly never, ever under the control of the IRA - I've a trans-fluvial structure in a New York City borough to sell you if you believe that. Why do media use the term "Republican movement" then and what do you think they mean by it?

I'd be reluctant to admit supporting the Provos too - it's on the same moral plane as admitting you're in favour of paedophilia

I hope it's not too embarrassing for you if I point out that your line of argument is precisely what everyone is trying to move away from...i.e. finger-pointing doesn't move things forward....it drags everything backwards into sectarian trenches.

For example, this discussion can turn into a post-troubles finger-pointing slanging-match that never ends or it can focus on the future of N.I. One person can bring up stakeknife, state-sponsored terrorism, dirty tricks, discrimination, many bloody sundays and partition or even the plantation of ulster, while another can dredge up numerous atrocities, bombings, murders etc. and that can keep going and going and going...and going...until one of the moderator locks the thread.

You see, combatlogo, the fact of the matter is, NOBODY comes out of the troubles looking good or with any moral high ground.

I know it isn't easy, but, take a leaf out of Trevor Ringlands book and try looking at it from a different perspective. For example, you describe Gerry Adams as a "terrorist scumbag". An independent and objective viewpoint might suggest that Adams not only had the vision to move from terrorism to politics but risked his life in persuading other, more militant, collegues to do the same. There was nobody else in the picture who could have done that. John Hume couldn't do it alone...neither could any of the british PMs.

Or to put it another way...that independent and objective viewpoint maybe unpalatable to many people, but, that doesn't make it untrue.

That's what Trevor Ringland is trying to do with ulster unionists via the one small step campaign....i.e. come out of the trenches and take a look at things from a different perspective. And no better man. He played on the wing for Ireland during the 1980s, at the height of the hunger strikes. He has seen things from many different perspectives and from what I can see, without patronising the guy too much...or stating the bleeding obvious, but, he appears to be a more rounded, balanced and forward-thinking unionist because of it.

If you read at all...can I suggest you have a scan at the story of Plato's Cave? There are huge parallels with what Ringland is doing up North. It's from Plato's most famous book called The Republic...but don't let the title put you off - Plato wasn't from Derry (here's a link to a brief synopsis).

[combatlogo]

[Those of the unsmiling, unflinching, prone to utter 'NO' quite often, not very inclusive and foam at the mouth with the mere mention of the concept of a 'United Ireland'

They're Unionists. They oppose a United Ireland. Get over it.

I understand where you're coming from, but, broadstroke statements like that about unionism don't apply anymore. Moderate Unionism is in the ascendency in northern ireland at the moment....i.e. unionists who accept that direct rule is not an option anymore but don't like the idea of re-unification with the rest of ireland, for pragmatic reasons (rather than sectarian reasons).

There are also republican unionists...i.e. unionists who are opposed to the monarchy and would like to see it replaced with a republic...where people are citizens, rather than subjects etc.

And of course you have the old-style unionists, who are turning into a caricature of themselves and who would like stronger ties between northern ireland and britain.

Thankfully, the latter are in a minority now...as witnessed by the overwhelming vote in favour of the GFA (good friday agreement) by the unionist community.

At least the politicians you (Sauvignon blanc) mention are democrats who didn't have a terrorist private army under their control.

Of course SF/IRA are separate entities with no personnel in common and SF was certainly never, ever under the control of the IRA - I've a trans-fluvial structure in a New York City borough to sell you if you believe that. Why do media use the term "Republican movement" then and what do you think they mean by it?

I'd be reluctant to admit supporting the Provos too - it's on the same moral plane as admitting you're in favour of paedophilia

I hope it's not too embarrassing for you if I point out that your line of argument is precisely what everyone is trying to move away from...i.e. finger-pointing doesn't move things forward....it drags everything backwards into sectarian trenches.

For example, this discussion can turn into a post-troubles finger-pointing slanging-match that never ends or it can focus on the future of N.I. One person can bring up stakeknife, state-sponsored terrorism, dirty tricks, discrimination, many bloody sundays and partition or even the plantation of ulster, while another can dredge up numerous atrocities, bombings, murders etc. and that can keep going and going and going...and going...until one of the moderator locks the thread.

You see, combatlogo, the fact of the matter is, NOBODY comes out of the troubles looking good or with any moral high ground.

I know it isn't easy, but, take a leaf out of Trevor Ringlands book and try looking at it from a different perspective. For example, you describe Gerry Adams as a "terrorist scumbag". An independent and objective viewpoint might suggest that Adams not only had the vision to move from terrorism to politics but risked his life in persuading other, more militant, collegues to do the same. There was nobody else in the picture who could have done that. John Hume couldn't do it alone...neither could any of the british PMs.

Or to put it another way...that independent and objective viewpoint maybe unpalatable to many people, but, that doesn't make it untrue.

That's what Trevor Ringland is trying to do with ulster unionists via the one small step campaign....i.e. come out of the trenches and take a look at things from a different perspective. And no better man. He played on the wing for Ireland during the 1980s, at the height of the hunger strikes. He has seen things from many different perspectives and from what I can see, without patronising the guy too much...or stating the bleeding obvious, but, he appears to be a more rounded, balanced and forward-thinking unionist because of it.

If you read at all...can I suggest you have a scan at the story of Plato's Cave? There are huge parallels with what Ringland is doing up North. It's from Plato's most famous book called The Republic...but don't let the title put you off - Plato wasn't from Derry (here's a link to a brief synopsis).

Blow me, you condescending tw@t - "If you read at all.." "I hope it's not too embarassing for you..."

Republican Unionists? Where's the evidence for this?

Yes, Adams and McGuinness deserve credit but let's not fall over ourselves being grateful to the IRA for deigning to stop murdering people.

To be honest, I find it hard to lend you any credibility given you made such an egregious error as claiming that Thatcher relied on UUP votes in the Commons. When this was pointed out to you, you claimed she still "played the Orange card", whatever that means. I'm just wondering was this before or after she sent Unionists into paroxysms of fury over the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

[MylesNaGapoleen]

Republican Unionists? Where's the evidence for this?

Yes, Adams and McGuinness deserve credit but let's not fall over ourselves being grateful to the IRA for deigning to stop murdering people.

To be honest, I find it hard to lend you any credibility given you made such an egregious error as claiming that Thatcher relied on UUP votes in the Commons. When this was pointed out to you, you claimed she still "played the Orange card", whatever that means. I'm just wondering was this before or after she sent Unionists into paroxysms of fury over the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

re: thatcher playing the "orange card".

that's a poor strawman argument, but, just to clarify (again)..I never said Thatcher relied on UUP votes in the commons for a majority...I mistakenly said she needed unionist (any unionist) support for a majority....as you correctly said, it was John Major who played the "orange card" to gain a majority in the commons. After you corrected me, I said she played the "orange card" to push through controversial bills..such as the poll tax (community charges) bill (*I stand corrected on that).

Now, you can stick to your flimsy strawman argument if you like....I would argue that we can agree to disagree on whether thatcher was in cahoots with ulster unionists or not, but, what we both agree on is that when John Major played the "orange card" to gain a majority....it completely strangled political progress in the north in the 90s.

The bottom line is...Cameron looks like he wants to play the orange card, with the UUP, the leader of whom was waxing lyrical about possibly bringing the british army back into Northern Ireland and moving towards direct rule, rather than devolution, the other night during the leaders debate on bbc1.

You can dance around that reality all you like combatlogo....and I'm not looking for any credibility from you...whatever that means...I'm just shooting the breeze about the other night....and in fairness, you attracted the patronising tone.

If you read back what you've written and look at it objectively and honestly, I think you might agree that you don't come across as someone who reads a lot. In the same breath, I think it's worth adding that an entrenchment mentality (such as automatically slotting into finger-pointing mode, using language like "Terrorist scumbag") doesn't really fit with consensus politics.

Which is stating the bleeding obvious, I know, but, it's for the same reason that unionists in the mould of Trevor Ringland coming along maybe a good sign. The fact that he is secular, for me, is more important than the fact that he's not a member of any orange order...plus the fact he is not a member of a loyalist marching group.

[janeymac08]

Profile of Trevor Ringland here ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 009507.ece

I remember reading an article in one of the papers by him just before "The Old Stand' when he recounted that himself and Hugo MacNeill used to have huge debates about Northern Ireland. Unlike most Unionists he seems to be comfortable in his own skin.

Suavignan Blanc - isn't Willie MacRea the bloke that fronts some sort of an organisation that believes that there are only protestant victims in NI and had the neck to organise the Love Ulster parade in Dublin where a poster of a loyalist 'victim' responsible for the Dublin Bombings was paraded up O'Connells street.

[combatlogo]

Profile of Trevor Ringland here ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 009507.ece

I remember reading an article in one of the papers by him just before "The Old Stand' when he recounted that himself and Hugo MacNeill used to have huge debates about Northern Ireland. Unlike most Unionists he seems to be comfortable in his own skin..

And you're basing this ludicrous statement on exactly what?

Suavignan Blanc - isn't Willie MacRea the bloke that fronts some sort of an organisation that believes that there are only protestant victims in NI and had the neck to organise the Love Ulster parade in Dublin where a poster of a loyalist 'victim' responsible for the Dublin Bombings was paraded up O'Connells street.

That would be Willie Frazer. There was no parade up O'Connell St, a combination of RSF, Garda complacency and incompetence and opportuism on the part of the creme de la creme of Dublin's scumbags, in Paul Williams' memorable phrase, saw to that.

Are you saying they shouldn't have been allowed march down the main thoroughfare of a state whcih claims it wants a united Ireland with them?

[janeymac08]

And you're basing this ludicrous statement on exactly what?

Which part of this 'ludicrous' statement - 1) that Trevor Ringland wrote in an article about playing rugby for Ireland that he and Hugo used to have fairly heated political discussions which they both learned from or the part that imo, northern unionists seems to me to be defined by being anti-united Ireland. Its only an opinion so I wouldn't get over excited about it being ludicrous.

Suavignan Blanc - isn't Willie MacRea the bloke that fronts some sort of an organisation that believes that there are only protestant victims in NI and had the neck to organise the Love Ulster parade in Dublin where a poster of a loyalist 'victim' responsible for the Dublin Bombings was paraded up O'Connells street.

That would be Willie Frazer. There was no parade up O'Connell St, a combination of RSF, Garda complacency and incompetence and opportuism on the part of the creme de la creme of Dublin's scumbags, in Paul Williams' memorable phrase, saw to that.

Are you saying they shouldn't have been allowed march down the main thoroughfare of a state whcih claims it wants a united Ireland with them?

No, I didn't object to it at the time but I have a friend who lost his mother in those bombings and I found it hard to take when I heard that a poster of one of those loyalists responsible for those bombings (regarded as a 'victim' by the organisers) was paraded around the streets of Dublin, while the memory of those who were innocent vitims of NI politics were ignored by the organisers of that parade.

For that reason I wouldn't want them near the place again.