The Ulster Banner shown in the article is literally the flag of England (red cross) with a British royal crown and an Irish symbol (the Red Hand) that, while once neutral, has been co-opted by many violent loyalist groups. Trying to declare this as an official symbol of the entire... place would go down about as well as the US changing its flag to a Republican elephant wearing a MAGA baseball cap.
This one isn't too hard to explain, I think. The red Lion Rampant either side of the red hand and star of david suggests that this is likely a flag intended for supporters of Rangers FC [0] - a football club in Glasgow, Scotland. They will take the opposite sides of any conflict from their rivals, Celtic, who have generally shown solidarity with Palestians: https://www.timesofisrael.com/scotlands-celtic-soccer-team-r...
The Northern Ireland connection comes from Rangers being supported by the Protestant population in Scotland/NI, and Celtic being supported by the Catholic population of Scotland/NI[1]. There's a big game on tonight - the Europa League final where Rangers are taking on Eintracht Frankfurt. Keep an eye out for some interesting flags and post-match violence :(
[1] - Except if you're in Edinburgh where it's less pronounced but still sort of present (Protestant=Hearts/Catholic=Hibs) or if you consider this sectarian feuding to be a stain on the sport and a national disgrace :)
To explain further the reason the Celtic football team supports Palestine is because the nationalist community in general supports Palestine. Mainly owing to the fact that they see broad similarities between NI and Israel/Palestine. Israel and Palestine flags can be seen around NI. Unionists supporting Israel doesn’t have much basis other than “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” unless there’s some deeper meaning I’m not aware of.
That's the historic reason, it makes sense, sounds good and fans on each side will happily justify their respective positions. But for the Old Firm I think the more important thing is to both be in opposition to each other.
Consider an alternate history where the British Mandate of Palestine being turned into Israel somehow caused Rangers to immediately declare solidarity with the people of Palestine. I don't think this would be an issue both sides of the Old Firm would be happy to share and come together on, and I can almost guarantee we'd instead be seeing Israeli flags proudly being flown at Parkhead on match day.
Sorry I have a fairly cynical view on this and having known and dealt with many fans of either side I have a fairly good idea what motivates them, and it always seemed to boil down to conflict above all else.
Edit: Just realised that my views may be coloured by being outside of the country for a decade, it could be that I only remember the worst encounters or conversations or that things are better now, or that I’m just sour every team I wanted to do well this year didn’t (Aberdeen were woeful, Montrose and Arbroath didn’t get promoted)
:-)
I think some of it also comes from the IRA and PLO, as well as various other European independence groups such as ETA having a lot of similar backers and similar problems to solve and so working with each other. The Soviet Union, Libya, Castro, etc backed them all and to some extent they helped each other out.
As far as I can gather, some people supporting reunification have adopted the Palestinian flag because they see Palestinians as "brothers in spirit" (i.e. seeing themselves as victims of an occupying government seeking to erase their national and cultural identity while they struggle for liberation, or something to that effect).
And through a very obvious but also very weird leap of logic, some of those opposing them have adopted the flag of Israel as a symbol of their opposition.
And from that point on they probably just went wild and added other unionist symbols to the flag because running around with regular Israeli flags felt weird or something.
EDIT: Someone linked a YouTube clip of a comedia making light of the flag situation that has apparently escalated to the point of the Italian flag being used as a symbol of resistance because someone saw an Italian flag in a Northern Irish school and got upset mistaking it for the Irish one.
That's probably the biggest parallel to Palestine I can find given that flag drama in Palestine has escalated to the point where watermelons have become a resistance symbol because of the similarity of its colors to the Palestinian flag, which is banned by Israeli police.
>EDIT: Someone linked a YouTube clip of a comedia making light of the flag situation that has apparently escalated to the point of the Italian flag being used as a symbol of resistance because someone saw an Italian flag in a Northern Irish school and got upset mistaking it for the Irish one.
I can't find any examples of the Italian flag being used as a resistance symbol in Norn, just the initial Willie Fraser incident - if you can share an example I'd like to see it though! (Because it's v. funny if true)
First time I've heard of the Red Hand being viewed negatively by the nationalist community. Given its place in ancient Irish mythology that surprises me. Perhaps in the North it is true but I certainly don't think it's viewed that way in Ireland. Although I know the Irish flag (green/white/orange) is viewed quite negatively by the unionist community even though ironically it is supposed to symbolize peace (white) between the nationalist (green) and unionist (orange - a la William of Orange) communities.
I grew up in the republic of Ireland and only associated the Red hand with unionism. ( I can find an article from 1999 talking about Sinn Fein complaining about the Red Hand in the north - https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-red-hand-of-ulster-1.... ). Don't know about nowadays though.
> is viewed quite negatively by the unionist community even though ironically it is supposed to symbolize peace (white) between the nationalist (green) and unionist (orange - a la William of Orange) communities.
In my (Catholic) school down the country we were (IIRC) never taught that the third colour was orange, but gold. Wikipedia gives two reasons for this, IIRC - one that it's easier to rhyme and the other being that people don't want to acknowledge the meaning/have to think about unionists when talking about the flag. (I don't remember learning the meaning of the flag either, but maybe it was covered once).
For whatever it’s worth as an adjacent topic. I went down the rabbit hole during covid and read a bunch of books on the troubles.
Hands down one of the most interesting topics I’ve come across in years and was one of those times where I kind of assumed in the back of my mind I knew at least the rough outline of what it was about before but after all I could think was how badly I was wrong.
It was also a really interesting read intellectually considering the backdrop of say the US in 2022 and how you have groups forming now who claim to say “violence is the only way forward” while also having this debate about “is it OK to protest out the front of somebody’s house”.
The PIRA were a lot of things to be sure but they were notoriously calculating and rational behind most of their decisions in a way that is particularly unusual amongst insurgent groups. Just watching how that thought process started and evolved throughout the 30+ year war and how society changed around them is one of the most interesting stories I’ve come across in a while and one that’s continued today since the transition to peace and now that they actually have political power for the first time from the election the other week in a way they never had before.
What you end up with after going through the story is this wild set of case studies that cover a whole range of topics that go from theoretical to applied real quickly like justice, political power, morality, propaganda, security and strategy. It’s not wrapped up into a particularly neat package with clear good and bad sides and by the end of it everyone is covered in shit and all anyone wants is to just live a normal life.
Historically the US had some both pro-violence and anti-violence involvement in the Troubles. PIRA were openly fundraising with US politicians in Boston; the republican side was armed by the ubiquitous Armalite (and a large quantity of Semtex from Libya). US involvement was also critical in brokering the ceasefire.
The present-day US has an odd combination of a lot of pro-violence rhetoric and a lot of weapons, but almost no organized violence, just a steady supply of stochastic terrorists shooting up grocery stores from time to time without a strategy.
> transition to peace
In many ways the Unionist side has coped worse with the transition to peace. Some groups haven't got past 1688. Can't "Ulster says no" to everything forever. The UK has never examined its own role in the violence and refuses to hold its murderers to account.
The current UK government's resitance to dealing with it's part is (as a Brit) incredibly frustrating. Many of us want this dealt with properly, and to build better relationships but there is a strong resistance to any self-reflection about any of our past.
Could you share some of the books you've read? I think I have a better knowledge of the history than the average English person, but I'm also very conscious that I've probably only scratched the surface on a very complex and tangled history.
I've heard that said about the IRA by people from the UK intellegence/security services. There was a level of "trust" and predictability between enemies that made it possible to negotiate a peace and to have channels of communication between them which were essential in the early days of the peace process.
I think it helped that there was a comprehensible end-goal for the IRA. This contrasts with the current rather nebulous aims of islamic and far-right terrorism in the UK, and their rather chaotic, ill-disceplined and isolated little groups.
I break them out into a few different categories depending on what you're actually looking for.
For a straight up history perspective that also goes pretty deep into the shadowy nature of it all I enjoyed The Dirty War by Martin Dillon.
I also enjoyed one called The Morality of Terrorism which does a nice job of jumping between the theoretical and practical aspects about the "just war theory" and also looks at from a real politik point of view if it was worth it? The answer was unsurprisingly no and makes the argument that in many ways the PIRA ended up where they started or at least that the conditions of the GFA were similar to a potential ceasefire deal that was on the cards early on in the war. They had the tools they needed by that point to pursue their political goals without violence and that it was all ultimately a strategic mistake and everyone is worse off for it.
Then there are a bunch of autobiographies from various points of view which capture a lot of that gritty on the ground detail and the behind the scenes thinking.
== Insider: Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA ==
This is the POV from a particularly senior operations guy in the IRA and has this interesting subcontext looking at how the popularity for the war changes over the years from this kind of "patriotic struggle" to just something extremely dark that people want nothing to do with and in the process he goes from a hero to villain figure in the eyes of many and his own disillusionment with it all. He had to go into hiding after writing this book and then killed himself shortly after presumably because of that level of disillusionment.
== The Volunteer : A Former IRA Man's True Story ==
Interesting story about how this guy gets radicalised at a young age and goes on to be the most famous bomb maker during the war, his eventual capture and deradicalisation. More of a real foot solider level perspective with no real influence on the scenario around him. It's real "true believer" stuff to something entirely different by the end of it all.
== Watching The Door: A Memoir 1971-1978 by Kevin Myers ==
This is the point of view of a local catholic journalist who was kind of the eyes and the ears on the ground for a lot of the world at the time.
== MRF Shadow Troop by Simon Cursey ==
This story as told by one member of the secret and particularly controversial British intelligence units during the war.
== Southside Provisional by Kieran Conway ==
The story as told by the PIRAs own head of intelligence and his experience going up against the British security services. Provides a interesting look at things from the leadership level inside the group.
== Fifty Dead Men Walking, Martin McGartland ==
The story as told by a guy who starts in the IRA in a supporting role rather than an operational capacity and is eventually recruited to spy for for the British who had access to the inner circle of the PIRAs upper command (he was their driver) and how he was eventually discovered, and in a very dramatic turn of events was able to escape by jumping from a 3rd story window right before they were about to kill him. It's a good example I thought about my original comment where the concept of "good and bad" in the troubles just doesn't work well as a framing no matter how much we want it to. The entire thing was a massive shit show and this kind of helps to unwind some of those romantic notions people seem to have in the younger generations of that period. His story also went on to become a movie by the same name which if I recall correctly is on YouTube.
>they actually have political power for the first time from the election the other week in a way they never had before
Worth pointing out the largest nationalist party and the largest unionist party are supposed to share power equally in the sectarian state and the only change here is symbolic. The unionist parties have insisted on the First Minister-Deputy First Minister distinction for years although it has now came back to bite them.
Agreed, I didn't get into it in the original comment because it's a pretty deep topic obviously but the idea of "having power" is an extremely shaky description at best.
From an outside perspective it really seems like the DUP have painted themselves into an extremely weird corner with Brexit and their new demands that looks increasingly like it was a fatal strategic move for them from a political point of view. You already have the UVF claiming to no longer respect the GFA and it's all rather unclear where they go from here.
Excellent podcast episode on the topic from a year ago before the election obviously here talking about the context leading up to all of this along with what dissident politics looks like since the end of the troubles https://podcastaddict.com/episode/120707318
Yes, it's difficult to understand the logic and lack of foresight behind many of the DUP's decisions over the last few years, particularly during the period they acted as kingmakers for the Tories in 2017-2019.
Pinker's 'Better Angels of our Nature' has an interesting take on how political violence always ends up self-defeating because it inevitably goes too far and alienates its constituency. It took a lot of political courage from all sides to resolve to move forward peacefully, but ultimately it was ordinary people's desire for that "normal life" that was the engine imo.
Not as much fun as the Derry flag. It’s got everything: a castle, a sword, a skeleton, and a harp with boobies. The bottom half is sable (black), always a fun choice of background in flags and arms.
That is a pretty awesome flag. When NZ had its flag referendum I was really in favour of a black flag, but apparently it could've looked too similar to ISIS.
That was in reference to the "silver fern frond on black" that a lot of our sports teams use, but my personal favourite was the Black Jack: https://i.redd.it/28dhw1vj06c61.jpg
I loved how the Union Jack now included Māori motifs, and the Southern Cross was on the angle it's usually seen at.
(Although I found the white stars jarring, as it looks like the Australian Southern Cross, although their's is more astronomically correct, as it has Epsilon Crucis also)
According to Wikipedia, their national rugby team wore black clothes in around 1905 and the team nickname "All Blacks" got popular. Then according to this article, the popularity of the rugby team then has made the color a popular national symbol in general.
That flag is nice, but it’s nowhere near the wonderful surreality of the Vovchansk (city in Russia) flag [0]. It has a regal squirrel about to do something awesome.
It's only a country under certain definitions of "country" as it's not an independent geopolitical entity (see Quebec, Catalonia, ...). It's formally part of the UK and as such as the Union Jack as a flag. Anything other than that has issues re: rioting and bad blood, but there's a number of them that has been used from time to time.
One could argue, and I'm sure the unionists do, that it's a direct continuation of the Irish of the Empire (see Taiwan). As we're seeing in the news, it's also become a logical impossibility as treaty relations require it to be both open and closed to the EU. It's totally tangled up in and (seemingly) totally ignored by English politics.
EDIT: I am of two minds re: flagging. It's not really appropriate in a narrow sense for HN, but it's one of the many issues left over from the 20th century that are unresolved. People should be aware of such places so they understand when some events happen.
Lots of things that aren't countries have flags. Every US state has a flag. Every gender identity and sexuality has a flag. McDonald's has a flag. You don't need to be a country to have a flag.
Does anyone actually claim that Northern Ireland is a country? The UK claims it as a province, Ireland claims it as a part of Ireland, and independence (as opposed to unionism or Irish reunification) is not very popular unlike in Scotland or Wales.
It seems that Northern Ireland is claimed as a country mostly by analogy to the other constituent countries of the UK. A foolish consistency...
With the Good Friday Agreement, Ireland recognised Northern Ireland as a part of the UK. You probably already knew this but I just wanted to clarify for anyone else reading.
Unlike almost all other treaties about borders, in the Good Friday Agreement Ireland does not recognize Northern Ireland as a perpetual part of the UK and does not recognize unconditional sovereignty of UK over NI - it's a recognition of the current situation as reflecting the current wishes of the population but explicitly leaves the long-term outcome open ended, stipulates that UK sovereignty is conditional upon NI population wishing to stay part of UK and mandates that if that choice of NI people changes, then UK has a binding obligation to cede Northern Ireland, no matter what people in England/Scotland/Wales would vote for.
Interestingly, the UK and ROI are not in Schengen[1], but jointly have a Common Travel Area[2], which means Irish passport holders can live and work in the EU and in the UK, post Brexit. British and Irish citizens can generally live and work in the other country without visas.
And vote too... I think the only election that can't be voted for is English people resident in Ireland for the president (for obvious reasons... there is no equivalent vote in England).
No, the treaties which actually set the borders and acknowledge or cede sovereignty, for example the Paris Peace treaties of 1947 setting some of the post-WW2 borders, and many others, usually being peace treaties following some conflict that changed the borders.
Schengen is about regulating travel over the existing borders, Schengen is not a border treaty about where the exactly the borders lie and which country has full sovereignty over some land. While in colloquial language Schengen can be described as "eliminating borders", of course that is only a limited metaphor/analogy and the Schengen treaty does not challenge or change the validity of borders between countries in the Schengen area - even if it's trivial for people to cross over some Schengen border, it is not questioned that the sovereignty and laws change across that line.
I thought "Ireland" refers to the island as a whole and "Republic of Ireland" is the non UK part.
By this definition, Northern Ireland is part of Ireland and the inhabitants are still called Irish. I don't know a ton of Irish people but I think I've heard them say it like that too? On the other hand, there seem to also be contexts where "Ireland" is shorthand for "Republic of Ireland".
AIUI, if you go by Irish law, the non-UK part of the island is just "Ireland"[1], and the island as a whole can be referred to as the "island of Ireland". The "Republic of Ireland" is the description of the state of Ireland[2].
In the UK, "Ireland" can mean either the country or the island as a whole. It's often clear from the context which is meant, though "Republic of Ireland"/"Irish Republic" is frequently used instead to make the distinction obvious.
The Good Friday Agreement[3] recognises that the people of Northern Ireland may consider themselves British, Irish, or both:
> recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments
There’s also a fun thing where some (a minority, in my experience most frequently on the other side of a customer support line when I’m already annoyed) British people call Ireland (the non-British part) “Southern Ireland”.
One of these days I’ll refer to “Southern Scotland” in return.
"Ireland" is the official name of the country as per it's constitution.
The "Republic of Ireland" is a description of the country given its status as a republic, and has been commonly mistaken as the name of the country due to editorial choices by some UK media.
Even Wikipedia erroneously catalogues "Ireland" under "Republic of Ireland".
Wikipedia doesn't have it wrong per se, it's just that it can't have two articles by the same name (Ireland the island, and Ireland the nation, only one of those can be at /wiki/Ireland), so I guess they opted for Ireland to mean the island, and then the page for the country is /wiki/Republic_of_Ireland...
However! That page makes it clear that the name of the country is Ireland:
Ireland (Irish: Éire [ˈeːɾʲə] (listen)), also known as the Republic of Ireland (Poblacht na hÉireann),
since Ireland there takes precedence.
In conclusion, I think it's just a technical limitation.
Less a limitation, more of a choice. Other articles, such as the ones on Australia or Cyprus, are able to disambiguate between the country and the landmass.
> I thought "Ireland" refers to the island as a whole and "Republic of Ireland" is the non UK part.
Some other posters have replied with some good information, but if you want Entirely Too Much Information this wikipedia page has a more fleshed-out discussion.
The sovereign state that consists of 26 counties on island referes to itself as Ireland.
Variations of The Republic are used for disambiguation but are not used officially.
> Northern Ireland is part of Ireland
The island yes. But not the Republic of the same name.
> and the inhabitants are still called Irish.
A large portion of the inhabitants see themselves as Irish. But there is also a large portion who see themselves as British. These are not necessarily exclusive categories as some of them see themselves as both British and Irish. There are also those who see themselves as Northern Irish.
Full disclaimer: Not Irish or British, just have an unhealthy interest in the situation.
> Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] (listen);[7] Ulster-Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a part of the United Kingdom that is variously described as a country, province, territory or region.
From Wiki, there's a bunch o links after that very first sentence.
More from wiki:
> For example, the websites of the Office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom[99] and the UK Statistics Authority describe the United Kingdom as being made up of four countries, one of these being Northern Ireland.[100] Other pages on the same websites refer to Northern Ireland specifically as a "province" as do publications of the UK Statistics Authority.[101][102] The website of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency also refers to Northern Ireland as being a province[103] as does the website of the Office of Public Sector Information[104] and other agencies within Northern Ireland.[105] Publications of HM Treasury[106] and the Department of Finance and Personnel of the Northern Ireland Executive,[107] on the other hand, describe Northern Ireland as being a "region of the UK". The UK's submission to the 2007 United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names defines the UK as being made up of two countries (England and Scotland), one principality (Wales) and one province (Northern Ireland).[108]
And Ireland definitely doesn't claim it as part of the Republic.
> And Ireland definitely doesn't claim it as part of the Republic.
It should be noted that up until the Belfast Agreement (Good Friday Agreement) the Republic of Ireland constitution did claim all 32 counties as part of the Republic. A part of the Good Friday Agreement was amendments to the RoI constitution. On the flip side was a formal requirement for a border poll if it appeared to the UK Secretary of State that a majority of NI would want a border poll.
Can you back up any of the very very _very_ bold claims you've made in this post? This comes across as someone who has absolutely no experience whatsoever with the situation and is is making a snap judgement based on their feelings
> The UK claims it as a province, Ireland claims it as a part of Ireland,
This is just nonsense. Neither the UK or Ireland claim anything of the sort.
> independence is not very popular
What does that have to do with its status as a country?
> What does that have to do with its status as a country?
Generally in a country you would expect to find some people (not necessarily the majority) who believe in the idea of that country as an independent, sovereign nation.
Northern Ireland doesn’t have that. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want it to either be part of UK or of Ireland, and to the extent an independence movement exists it’s notable only for how incredibly un-popular it is.
Why does it matter? Because if the population of a putative “country” don’t in fact see it as a country but rather as a territory of somewhere else, then the “country” descriptor would appear to have been externally applied.
You've built your own definition of a country there, and it's such a dated definition of a country even Wikipedia straight up disagrees with you [0]. When talking about NI in particular, the rules are flexed but there is no doubt that it is not a requirement for a country to be an independent sovereign nation.
> the “country” descriptor would appear to have been externally applied.
You've made two generous leaps here - that the population don't consider it to be a country, and that the fact that an externally applied label on a state is invalid. It's incredibly dismissive of you to think that the people of NI don't think of it as country for a dtart, but your second point is just plain wrong. I can call Crimea a disputed territory with confidence, despite Russia claiming it's independent, for example.
> The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want it to either be part of UK or of Ireland, and to the extent an independence movement exists it’s notable only for how incredibly un-popular it is
I wonder what the mainland thinks?
On that theme, I've ever pondered would happen if one were to hold a referendum in England, Wales and Northern Ireland about Scotland leaving the UK and becoming a sovereign state. Not least because of the Barnett formula[0], asking the Scots what they think of independence is surely only part of the puzzle.
I'm British and I have always considered NI to be one of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. They are all countries in their own right, and the UK is also considered a country for most purposes. Although I think it's weird the number of (mostly foreign) entities that only provide GB as an option for country rather than UK.
> Although I think it's weird the number of (mostly foreign) entities that only provide GB as an option for country rather than UK.
For some reason that I've never understood, the ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 and alpha-3 codes for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are "GB" and "GBR" [1]. That might have some bearing on this.
As a brit as well, and as commentary for others who don't live here, my perception is that the term "Great Britain" isn't used a lot nowadays - either as an informal synonym for "the country called the UK", or as the formal name for "the part of the UK that isn't Northern Ireland". It does get used for things like "Team GB" (the UK Olympic team branding, which includes athletes from NI) and probably other sports-related stuff. Its all very confusing...
The reason is that the ISO codes were inherited, via a long winding path, from the postal system. That's why you'll see that the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey have codes as well (even though they are not independent sovereign states). And of course Ireland has a code. But then after the postal codes were created came partition, and the Unionists called themselves British, so wouldn't have wanted a code that made them felt less British, and so whereas they would have been under the Ireland code before partition they joined GB after partition.
Interestingly I get a sense among most young people in Northern Ireland that they are pro-union while very distinctly categorising NI as a country in itself.
There is a party called the Alliance party that is attempting to offer an alternative to tribal politics of DUP/SF and they did quite good in recent election.
Even with that being said, I think most younger people see the Union as a good thing, if even in just the economic sense.
Somewhat less so than before Brexit but still the finances of NI look dire if they left the union.
That is incorrect, Sinn Fein are the most popular party with the younger demographic and Alliance are popular among middle aged people. The antediluvian politics of the DUP is more popular among the 18-34 cohort than Alliance.
From what I’ve read, polling disagrees with you. Younger people tend to be much more in favour of Unity. I also wouldn’t confuse the Alliance vote with support for the Union. A lot of people who want a border poll in the medium term, also want sane, modern representation in the short term. Alliance is the answer to that.
> Does anyone actually claim that Northern Ireland is a country?
It is standard UK government terminology to call it a "constituent country". To just give one random example – https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/eat-out-to-help-out... – HRMC statistics updated in February this year speak of "Four constituent countries within the UK"
> independence (as opposed to unionism or Irish reunification) is not very popular unlike in Scotland or Wales
I don't think the term "country" for the primary first-level subdivisions of the UK necessarily has anything to do with independence. The term has been used that way for decades, including back in the days when Scottish or Welsh independence were rather fringe positions. It is still used today by many people who oppose the Scottish and Welsh independence movements. So the fact that Northern Ireland independence has very few advocates, is not in itself an argument against Northern Ireland being a "constituent country".
> The UK claims it as a province
Calling it a "province" is controversial. Ireland is traditionally divided into four provinces; Northern Ireland is the six eastern counties of the Province of Ulster, but its three western counties are part of the Republic. Unionist sources often like to identify Northern Ireland with the Province of Ulster; nationalists view this conflation as inaccurate, disrespectful, and politically biased. Due to both the arguments that the term is technically incorrect, and the desire not to inflame the nationalist community, the UK government generally avoids the term "province" for Northern Ireland. Nationalists obviously aren't big fans of the term "country" either, but it is not as strongly associated with the unionist viewpoint as "province" is, so they don't find it as upsetting.
Officially, the UK does not claim "Northern Ireland" to be a "province". I'm not sure if, officially speaking, the UK claims "Northern Ireland" to be anything at all, other than "Northern Ireland", and theirs. Even the original Act of the UK Parliament creating it (Government of Ireland Act 1920) never explicitly said what kind of things the two entities it was attempting to create ("Northern Ireland" and "Southern Ireland") actually were. I believe that was intentional, to try to maximise the chances of the Act being accepted by competing viewpoints (an intention which largely failed to be achieved, but its authors tried.)
Similarly, the Good Friday Agreement never states what "Northern Ireland" actually is. Any answer to that question is likely to upset somebody, so both the UK and Irish governments have decided to avoid all that potential upset by avoiding endorsing any official answer to the question.
Indeed, the term country can simply mean a region of land. It doesn’t necessarily imply a political or cultural unit, although of course it’s commonly used that way. So in England ‘the north country’ can just mean an area roughly cognate with the northern counties, or maybe the regions bordering Scotland. Or you might say the west of a county is hilly country. It’s a loose term in that usage.
This seems a poor article for not mentioning the St Patrick’s Cross - one of the flags “making up” the Union Flag / Union Jack, representing Ireland. It’s contentious, but arguably significantly less so than the Ulster Banner.
This comment should be at the top. If someone had asked me, who grew up in the Republic, what the Northern Irish flag was that would have been my answer.
I’m actually struggling to understand the article because the Ulster Flag is used to represent Northern Ireland in pretty much every kind of context. Whether or not Northern Ireland is technically a country or province is irrelevant and just semantics.
If you look at golf Rory McIlroy’s name appears beside the Ulster Flag. In the commonwealth games it’s the same.
We just had an election, 35/90 assembly seats went to Nationalist (NI should not exist) candidates, the rest went either to Unionist (NI should remain part of the UK) or 'Other' (there are more important things to worry about) candidates.
Unionism is still the biggest designation in Stormont.
Including Alliance in these stats is misleading. We’ve no idea how those voters would vote in a border poll and therefore in any claims about that they should be discounted (as, if we had a border poll, they would have to choose). When you do that the vote was almost 50/50 in terms of unity/union parties.
The aligned parties are split roughly 50/50 (37 unionist seats, 35 nationalist seats). Both lost ground to unaligned parties, which now control the remaining 18 seats.
I think you can call 35/90 "roughly half" without it being incorrect. That's 39% of the assembly, depending on the voting lines and non-voter opinion it could easily be ~50% of the population.
It's based on nothing concrete, but I'd assume those that don't believe Northern Ireland should exist would be more likely to not vote in the Northern Irish elections.
They'd be more likely to vote for a Nationalist party yes, but they'd also be more likely not to vote as that would acknowledge the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland.
Eh, after Brexit my money is on Sinn Fein reuniting the Irish motherland if they don't cock it up. The English and Tory government have made it abundantly clear that no one matters outside of England or especially Downing St.
Oh @happymellon, don't get your crumpets in a twist. The Tories honestly only seem to care about themselves and about England to the extent it helps them remain in power or rich.
> My understanding is that the Irish motherland has always been wary of outright reunification.
If it’s going to be shitshow, the Irish government would rather it be the UK’s shitshow.
The government and people of Ireland are not the same. The government may have intense reservations about taking on a place guaranteed to need huge subsidies for decades at best. Doesn’t mean the people won’t vote for unification. More’s the pity.
Just to support your point, currently the Northern Ireland fiscal balance runs at a deficit of £10 billion per annum and has run a deficit since the Great Depression. [1]
Which is ironic given it was historically the wealthiest part of Ireland pre-partition. If unification were to happen my money would be on it becoming much wealthier (module some kind of troubles 2.0 not kicking off - a big if!). Even if there was no reunification, I think they could be in a really strong position economically if they were to just accept the current NI protocol agreement. They would be in a very advantageous position with access to both the EU and UK markets. Maybe that is what the brexiteers are worried about as any improvement relative to the rest of the UK would provide concrete evidence of the economic impact of brexit. Of course it could go the other way!
> My understanding is that the Irish motherland has always been wary of outright reunification.
Yes, there is a lot of concern in the ROI about how the Irish state would fund everything, especially if it would be necessary to deploy military. Ireland has a minuscule military (neutral, non-NATO etc), and obviously is a much smaller economy than GB. However, there is talk that the EU would support reunification.
> They’re also a bit leery about having the DUP as a political party.
Exactly. As I understand it, the DUP would have a larger influence the the Dail (Irish parliament) of the theoretical reunified Ireland, than they do in Westminster. Since they are a reactionary, conservative party, which doesn't exist in the ROI today, it's certainly a concern.
The attitudes and situation has changed a lot in recent years, especially because of Brexit. Here's a good read:
Everyone always makes these sort of economic arguments. In practice they don't really matter when you're talking about a vote/referendum in which the general population gets to vote. People will gladly vote themselves 10% poorer if it lines up with their personal beliefs.
I wonder why nobody seems to have ever taken the condominium solution seriously?
In a condominium, Northern Ireland would become a joint territory of both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. It would be institutionally complex, but I can't see why it couldn't be made to work in practice, if the constitutional decision was made to implement it.
It would be similar in some ways to Andorra – just as Andorra has two joint heads of state (the Catholic Bishop of Urgell in Spain, and the President of France), Northern Ireland would have two joint heads of state (the President of Ireland and the King/Queen of the UK). I doubt they'd call them "Co-Princes" though, as Andorra does–too mediaeval-sounding. And, unlike Andorra, I'm not talking about Northern Ireland being an independent sovereign state – it would still be a subnational unit, just a subnational unit belonging to two sovereign states simultaneously.
While such arrangements are quite rare, they are allowed under international law, and have existed in the past. A notable example is Vanuatu, which prior to independence in 1980, was a joint British-French territory (New Hebrides). However, New Hebrides is in some ways a bad example - pre-independence it had two separate governments, one British and one French, with immensely inefficient duplication–two separate police forces, two separate prison systems; even two separate immigration departments–if the British one refused you a visa, you could always have another go with the French one. Initially, the only shared institution was the Joint Court, with three judges–one British, one French, and a third neutral judge to act as a tie-breaker, appointed by the King of Spain. In the later years, they introduced a third joint British-French government, and transferred some powers to it-but the separate British and French governments still remained, and continued their inefficient duplication right up to independence.
If there were ever a Northern Ireland condominium, I would expect something far more streamlined, in which Ireland and the UK appoint a joint administration in Belfast to run non-devolved matters, to which the current powers of the UK ministers would be transferred, while the existing devolved institutions would continue to exist under that joint administration's supervision. The Irish and UK national Parliaments would each separately have the power to disallow secondary legislation made by the joint administration, and primary legislation in non-devolved matters would be proposed by the joint administration, and then only enter into force once both national Parliaments had separately (and identically) enacted it.
Another major difference is that New Hebrides was a colonial situation, in which the indigenous population were denied political power – and, as was common in European colonialism, even the citizens of the colonial powers found themselves denied in the colonies political rights they would have had in they'd remained in the mother country. I think a solution for a Northern Ireland condominium could be for Northern Irish MPs to be members of both the Dáil Éireann and the House of Commons simultaneously. They could also play a special role in providing democratic accountability to the joint administration, through a "Northern Ireland Grand Committee" (and possibly subcommittees thereof) which would simultaneously be a committee of both national Parliaments (all its members being simultaneously members of both). And the final court of appeal for Northern Ireland would have an equal number of judges appointed by each national Supreme Court, from among their own members – maybe with (like the Joint Court of New Hebrides) a Chief Justice being appointed from a third country – these days, rather than turning to a third country's monarchy to appoint a neutral arbiter, you might give that power to the Secretary-General of an international organisation, such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or the Council of Europe.
Probably never going to happen – I expect the status quo to endure for a few more decades, followed by eventual Irish reunification – but a condominium is an interesting idea to ponder.
It's an interesting proposal that honestly I hadn't considered before, was it ever on the table at all or is it just an interesting idea? I'd be curious how popular it would be among the populace of Northern Ireland itself. In terms of the political parties I am relatively certain it would be a non-starter. I think it would be seen by the unionist parties as a huge leap in the direction of re-unification, and they won't want to cede an inch. And given their recent momentum Sinn Féin could be confident that they'll gain some kind of mandate for reunification proper without relying on this compromise.
I'm not a resident of nor am I affiliated with Ireland or Northern Ireland at all so my gut-feel may be way off :)
It is not a new idea. In 1984, the Irish government established a "New Ireland Forum", bringing together nationalist politicians from both North and South, to come up with proposals for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, as an alternative to the violent tactics of the Provisional IRA. It proposed three options: (1) a united Ireland as a unitary state; (2) Ireland as a federation or confederation of both the north and south; (3) Northern Ireland to be ruled by a "joint authority" established by both the UK and Irish governments. Option (3) is essentially a condominium, even if they didn't use the word. The Thatcher government, and Northern Ireland unionists, rejected all three options out of hand.
The SDLP leader, Colum Eastwood, publicly repeated the condominium/"joint authority" proposal in 2017, as an alternative to direct rule from London due to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive, but the DUP and UUP opposed the idea. (I'm not sure what Sinn Fein had to say about it.)
> I think it would be seen by the unionist parties as a huge leap in the direction of re-unification, and they won't want to cede an inch. And given their recent momentum Sinn Féin could be confident that they'll gain some kind of mandate for reunification proper without relying on this compromise.
A pattern I see in Northern Ireland: the First Minister and deputy First Minister are formally equal in power, but the first has the more prestigious title. When Sinn Fein had the deputy role, they wanted to change the titles to give them equal prestige – such as by renaming both to "Joint First Minister" – the DUP refused. Now that Sinn Fein is supposed to get the First Minister role, suddenly DUP is expressing interest in changing the name – Sinn Fein is refusing, essentially saying "If you didn't want to compromise with us then, why should we compromise with you now?"
So I think you are right: unionists will oppose any compromises on the constitutional status question until the point at which it becomes obvious they are going to lose. Then the nationalists will say to them: "if you'd come to us in decades past, we quite possibly would have said yes, but why should we compromise with you now?"
As far as I understood it the re-unification costs would fall mostly on the Republic of Ireland and they're not negligible, not sure if the people from inside of the Republic of Ireland would be willing to put that on their expenses tab. I might be wrong, of course, as I'm not from that general geographic area.
Isn't it more like most of NI think it shouldn't exist. Half of those think it shouldn't exist in one way (should be part of UK) and half think it shouldn't exist in another way (should be part of Ireland).
One unique aspect of Northern Ireland (among many others) is that the region has never really had its own independent identity. The population is politically aligned with the UK and culturally with a mix of UK and the rest of Ireland, leaning more towards the latter. Irish sporting teams for example all include Northern Ireland as well, making the whole situation even more bizaree. This makes it very different from the other countries it is being compared to in that article (Scotland, Wales). It follows that there was never any need or desire for an official flag.
Association Football a.k.a. soccer, is governed by two separate organisations, however many sports likes gaelic football, hurling, camogie, rugby, cricket, hockey etc are governed on an all island basis, as their governing bodies predate the partition of Ireland.
I would argue that the claim that "No one knows the origin of Ulster’s ‘Red Hand’" is somewhat inaccurate.
The wikipedia page[1] covers a lot of its history. Because it's very old, dating back to at least the European dark ages, the initial origin is fuzzy indeed but there's a long historical record of its use. It clearly pre-dates the Normans in Ireland.
Slap a badly-designed coat-of-arms on a piece of cloth, then add the name of the entity right above it because the coat-of-arms is obscure and no-one would recognize it (which is the main function of both flags and coat of arms). A flag like that just screams "the entity I represent has no right to exist, we'd be much happier as a British/French/Spanish/German/Burkina-Fasoan colony"
> Might this be the only example of four tiers of nested political entities which all have different flag shapes?
Probably not. Rhode Island's flag has a ratio of 29:33.[1] But I guess it's easy to find US states with flags that don't match the US flag's ratio, nor other flags.
As a brit, its quite amusing to read through some of the comments here where people are effectively trying to nail-down the rules for the identities and relationships between the geographical / political / historical entities that exist inside the British Isles. There seems to be an assumption that there are consensus, unambiguous rules and definitions that structure this stuff - as you'd expect to find in a modern, well-organised state like say the USA or France - but there mostly aren't such things. Not really.
These are very old islands with lots of history. Not everyone agrees on things. What definitions there are are more like leaky abstractions. Living here, you learn that it's necessary to take a relaxed attitude to this stuff.
But, basically, as far as I know...
Geographically:
British Isles = { Island of Ireland, (island of) Great Britain }
Politically:
British Isles = { United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel Islands }
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = { Great Britain, Northern Ireland }
Great Britain = ( England, Scotland, Wales }
Channel Islands = { Bailiwick of Jersey, Bailiwick of Guernsey }
Bailiwick of Jersey = { Island of Jersey }
Bailiwick of Guernsey = ( (islands of) Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, Herm, various small islands }
The British Isles is a geographical entity. The Republic of Ireland and the UK are nation states (aka "countries") in the recognised sense of international law - they have seats at the UN and all that.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are "countries" within the UK. But that meaning of "country" is different to the use of "country" as a synonym for nation state (see above). None of them are nation states. Scotland has a parliament that has extensive legal, political, and financial jurisdiction within Scotland - but the UK parliament (in London, England) has reserved powers over areas like defence and foreign relations. Wales and Northern Ireland have assemblies that are not parliaments but do much the same job as a parliament. England doesn't have a parliament or an assembly, but it hosts the UK parliament in London that legislates for England as well as having final authority over all of the UK (see the problem there?). Scotland of sometimes termed a "nation" and Wales (patronisingly?) a "Principality".
All the parts of the United Kingdom use the pound sterling as their currency. The Republic of Ireland uses the Euro.
There are various problems with all this:
- Geography determines politics determines history.
- The official name for the "Republic of Ireland" is actually "Ireland". Which can sound like island when spoken. I only used the term Republic of Ireland because its impossible to by unambiguous otherwise. Sorry.
- The Island of Ireland (geographical) is not the same as the Republic of Ireland (political) or Ireland (political) and in fact does not map onto a single political entity. Except that its does for people who consider NI to be part of a united Ireland which is an ambition for some but not a de jure thing.
- "Great Britain" is both a geographical entity (the island on the east of the (geographical) British Isles) and a political subdivision (the GB in UK of GB&NI).
- The Isle of Man and Channel Islands are awkward because they're historically and culturally independent and have their own parliaments and laws etc. But they're also kind of "british" in that the UK parliament can legislate for them in extremis, and the UK represents them internationally and at the UN, and guarantees their defence. Also they are "crown dependencies" that are in some squishy sense "owned" by the UK head of state (the Queen) and are dependencies (whatever that means) of The Crown which is the Queen's legal persona/role. Or something like that.
- Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own sterling banknotes, but they're actually printed (issued? both?) by private banks. Elsewhere in the UK the currency is issued by the UK government.
- The traditional/historial provinces of The Island of Ireland (Connacht, Leinster, Munster, and Ulster) are all contained within the Republic of Ireland except for Ulster, which comprises the territory of Northern Ireland and some of the bordering counties of the Republic of Ireland. But "Ulster" is often informally used as a synonym for Northern Ireland. Whether this is correct or just historical probably depends on your political take.
- Northern Ireland is currently "in" (for some values of the word "in") the Eurozone, even though it is part of the UK which left the Eurozone with Brexit.
Its very complicated. This is just my take, and I've probably got many things wrong. Many people will disagree with some of a lot of it, because history|politics|culture. It may possibly offend some (sorry). And thats fine because its complicated.
> Scotland has its own sterling banknotes, but they're actually printed (issued? both?) by private Scottish banks.
So does Northern Ireland! Ulster Bank, Danske Bank, and the Bank of Ireland all print their own Sterling notes here. All have wildly different designs, with Ulster Bank even going so far as to print their notes vertically: https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/05/2...
Last time I was in England, I tried to buy lunch at Pret with a Northern Irish £5 note. The worker at the till saw it, hung his head, and told me to "just take the sandwich."
