David Cameron on Bloody Sunday report: “I am deeply sorry”

[philjuliard]

Right. Name me one country in the last 100 years which became independent from a union or its colonial masters, where part of it remained behind? The only example is Ireland.
If we followed Ireland's example the world would be a strange place of little enclaves dotted all over, populated by people who didn't want independence and remaining as partitioned colonies.

The Irish nationalists wanted independence for the kingdom of Ireland. The majority supported it. Democracy is where the majority view prevails.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many British people don't understand it.

The difference is that, in those other former colonies, those that wanted to remain part of the Empire were spread out geographically and in every region I would guess that the majority wanted independence. Whereas, in Ireland, those wanting to become independent were mainly concentrated in the south and west of the Ireland. Those wanting to remain in the UK were massively concentrated in the north east f the Ireland.

That's the difference.

[Northumbrian]

Right. Ethnic Russians live to the east of the Dniester river in Moldova and they want to break away, but aren't allowed to. Ethnic Russians live in the eastern Ukraine, but no chance of becoming part of Russia.
Ethnic Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro all live together, mostly near the Serb border, but partition of those countries wasn't allowed.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Red Rackham]

The war in Bosnia is the perfect example of the failure of multiculturalism.

[philjuliard]

Right. Ethnic Russians live to the east of the Dniester river in Moldova and they want to break away, but aren't allowed to. Ethnic Russians live in the eastern Ukraine, but no chance of becoming part of Russia.
Ethnic Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro all live together, mostly near the Serb border, but partition of those countries wasn't allowed.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Whatever. Is the failure of Russia to hold onto Eastern Ukriane post-USSR and the other examples an indication that what they have done is right, by denying the overall democratic will of the people concentrated in those areas?

Of course not. Stop being an idiot.

[Northumbrian]

Whatever. Is the failure of Russia to hold onto Eastern Ukriane post-USSR and the other examples an indication that what they have done is right, by denying the overall democratic will of the people concentrated in those areas?

Of course not. Stop being an idiot.

So in other words, you don't believe in the territorial integrity of nations. Okay, do you think West Belfast should be transferred to the Irish Republic, as that's what the majority of people there want?

[philjuliard]

So in other words, you don't believe in the territorial integrity of nations. If an enclave of Pakistanis in Bradford wanted to be ruled by Pakistan, you would have no problem with that?

The resort of someone who is losing a debate is to stretch an argument of their opponent to a deliberately absurd level.

Yes, I believe in the territotial integrity of nations.

Your hypothetical point is not comparing like with like. We are discussing the situation of States retaining control over parts of countries when they are granted independence, due to the democratic wish of people in that country to remain part of the state granting independence.

Bradford has not been under Pakistani Government control, as far as I am aware. Ergo, Pakistan's Government has nothing to do with Bradford.

[Northumbrian]

Your whole argument is absurd, and it's let down by bias.

For a start, you know little about Ireland. Did you know that the first vote on Irish unity with Britain in the Dublin parliament was voted against? An all protestant parliament - many of whom were descended from Scots and English. The second vote may have been passed, but there were many dissenters, including Orangemen.
So moving on to independence in 1921. It wasn't independence that worried them, but the prospect of Catholics being in charge. It was always about control.

Secondly, Ireland had it's first all-Ireland parliament in 1264. Even following unity with Britain, Ireland (like Scotland) kept it's own legal system, education, churce, banks. The nationalists wanted independence for the whole of Ireland. The majority agreed, a minority didn't, and a chunk of their nation was sliced off.

You do not believe in the territorial integrity of nations.

[Northumbrian]

Your hypothetical point is not comparing like with like. We are discussing the situation of States retaining control over parts of countries when they are granted independence, due to the democratic wish of people in that country to remain part of the state granting independence.

Though if the majority of people of a country wants to form a union with another, you would ignore those who disagreed with it? Blatant hypocrisy!

[Northumbrian]

Likewise, if people wanted independence for Munster, I'm sure the British would have rejected it, rightly saying that it was only a part of the kingdom of Ireland.

Legally, they could only campaign for the secession of the kingdom of Ireland. It was the British who acted inappropriately.

[philjuliard]

Your whole argument is absurd, and it's let down by bias.

For a start, you know little about Ireland. Did you know that the first vote on Irish unity with Britain in the Dublin parliament was voted against? An all protestant parliament - many of whom were descended from Scots and English. The second vote may have been passed, but there were many dissenters, including Orangemen.
So moving on to independence in 1921. It wasn't independence that worried them, but the prospect of Catholics being in charge. It was always about control.

Secondly, Ireland had it's first all-Ireland parliament in 1264. Even following unity with Britain, Ireland (like Scotland) kept it's own legal system, education, churce, banks. The nationalists wanted independence for the whole of Ireland. The majority agreed, a minority didn't, and a chunk of their nation was sliced off.

You do not believe in the territorial integrity of nations.

YOUR hypothetical example is absurd because, for all your irrelevant historical diversion, Ireland was Governed by Britain. No part of Bradford, West Yorkshire nor Britain has been governed by Pakistan.

I do believe in terratorial integrity. Its simply easier to retain part of a State when granting independence (N Ireland) than it is for a bunch of people to suddenly decide they want to be governed by somewhere else.

It is you nationalist bias that is clouding YOUR argument.

One of the main arguments for Irish independence was that it was wrong for a country to be governed by a country that the majority did not want to be governed by. The same case applies to Northern Ireland.