Eamon, perhaps you'd like to show me where the six counties now known as Northern Ireland once constituted a sovereign nation even just a distinct province?

As far as I'm aware 4 of the 6 counties have Nationalist/Catholic majorities meaning that their culture is broadly similar to the rest of Ireland.

Simply because you know a few people who believe in an imaginary nationality doesn't make it so.

Next we'll have people clamining to be "Northern French" or "East German" - oh that's right we already had that, worked out well didn't it?

Posted by Saighdúirí | 24.09.09, 01:09 GMT

Serge,

You say Northern Ireland has no basis in history. I'll respectfully add: In your opinion.

I know many people who consider themselves Northern Irish first and foremost - and it's people who are the foundations of nations.

Posted by Eamon | 17.09.09, 13:47 GMT

Saighdúirí,

what's this about "The will of the Irish people"? I'm not aware of any binding referendum being conducted on the matter of Ireland leaving the UK - just a typically flawed Westminster election.

Posted by Eamon | 17.09.09, 13:41 GMT

Scotland, Wales and England are undoubtedly nations given their long history, notwithstanding that they are really states within Great Britain and are not "countries". For my part, Ireland and the Irish are a nation divided. I don't think that there is a Northern Irish "nationality" simply Irish within the political union of UK of GB and NI and Irish outside that (like me). I don't think that makes you any less Irish. Indeed I think, even if you are "British", by identifying as "Northern Irish" as your nationality you are qualifying your "Irishness" as something less than truly Irish (and really asserting your Britishness by doing so). If so, fair play, but you are not Irish (you are just British and nothing else that is recognised) ... why not be Irish and British if you want (like the Big Mahn)? If Northern Ireland is around in 200 years (and I hope it is not as a political entity) then maybe yes you can be "Northern Irish".

Posted by Niall | 15.09.09, 11:41 GMT

Robbie C. Don't worry, the person you met is in a minority and clearly a bit confused about his origins.

Ireland is one island therefore to call anyone from Ireland, north or south, Irish is correct. Furthermore, until 1922, Ireland was one country, and has been one nation for far far longer than she has been divided.

Under British law, she has been a nation since the establishment of the Lordship of Ireland in 1171. In 1922, a religious minority in the North-east of Ireland decided they didn't want to follow the will of the Irish people and clamoured to rule themselves in their own little dominion. Of course, the British government acquiesed in this, just wanting the troublesome Irish to go away, and quick.

Thus some in Northern Ireland feel the need to invent nationalities such as "Northern Irishness", an absolutely ridiculous concept. One can be Irish and British, or as many hold only Irish passports in NI, solely Irish. Calling someone from Ireland is absolutely correct.

Posted by Saighdúirí | 15.09.09, 09:29 GMT

Bemused--First of all, no one ever called me Canadian but I know that I would not be insulted. I respect Canada and find them to be great neighbors! Secondly if you got my drift you will see that I admitted my ignorance in this matter, apoligized for it! However, I still say that a lot of Americans do not realize the difference but that no longer includes myself. I think you have a beautiful country and can't wait to return.

Posted by Robbie C | 15.09.09, 02:55 GMT

Robbie C, don't worry. One meets strange characters everywhere, indeed I once knew a person who wanted to be known as a Western Belgian, whatever that is. I just smiled, said " ok good man" and moved on. Ireland is one island, and from time immemorial up to 1922 was one nation too until it was partitioned - under threat of war - by a religious fringe wishing to rule their own part of the island, hence referring to people from anywhere on the island of Ireland as Irish is completely acceptable, and correct. Of course, certain people from a Loyalist background don't seem to be able to accept geographic and historical facts but sure that's the way it goes. I once saw a TV documentary where certain people in a pub corrected a young tourist in Northern Ireland after she said she was happy to be in Ireland - they informed her that she wasn't in Ireland but Britain. Honestly, you couldn't make it up.

These sad people will move on - eventually.

Posted by Jean-Jacques | 14.09.09, 22:28 GMT

Robbie C, and how did you feel when people call you Canadian?

Posted by Bemused | 14.09.09, 13:30 GMT

In light of all these discussions I have to say that when I referred to my NI teen who stayed with us last July as "Irish" he was very insulted. He said it was annoying that people here in the states think they are Irish with no distinction as to where they are actually from.--He is from Belfast and he wanted us to refer to him as "Northern Irish". I had to explain to him that here most of us naive Americans do not see or know that there is any difference --we see your island as "Ireland" with no distinction for the north as a separate country. This is one Yankee who learned something and apologizes for our ignorance on the subject.

Posted by Robbie C | 12.09.09, 14:47 GMT

Eamon, it has nothing to do with the size of the entity but rather the considerations behind what justifies it.

Northern Ireland has no basis in history, there is no reason for its existence other than a religious minority in the North-East part of Ireland wishing to go against the desires of the rest of the nation and create their own dominion. The partition of Ireland is an anomaly in Irish history and as such has a shaky legal basis.

Take the 11 Confederate States of America who tried to secede from the Union. They were (forcibly) re-integrated. The creation of an independent Saarland after World War II similarly had little historical basis reverting to West German control in 1957.

As I mentioned earlier it would be anomalous to French pieds-noirs in Algeria declaring the part of the country they were the majority in, let's say the North-East, separate and going against the wishes of the rest of the Algerian nation by creating their own province, under overall French rule.

Posted by Serge | 11.09.09, 16:46 GMT

Serge, NI is not Europe's last vestige of colonisation and empire. There is also Scotland and Wales and the islands under Norway in the north Atlantic to name but three more.

Posted by lumina | 11.09.09, 16:16 GMT

Sean,

you forget that much smaller entities have been recognized as nations too: Iceland, The Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea, São Tomé and Príncipe, Trinidad and Tobago, Bhutan, Cyprus, East Timor, Malta, Luxembourg - and many, many more.

Posted by Eamon | 11.09.09, 15:06 GMT

When asked what nationality I am I cannot in good faith say British or Irish... however I am very proud to call myself Northern Irish! Yes, I know this is a bit too neutral for some, and ignores most of the eloquent arguments set out below, but I am very proud to be from my "wee" country, even with its faults and failings. I would support any legislation or school of thought that would allow us to be recognized as a small, and very unique nation or place, made up of cultures that are still learning to get along. I do hope this opinion does not upset anyone, I realize some people want to be one or the other - I just really do like the country/place I come from and want to it to be recognized.

Posted by Norn Irn Man | 11.09.09, 14:24 GMT

The NI state (or province), consisting only of six counties is by not recognized as a nation anywhere in the world. Much larger and more populious
entities have failed to be regarded as nations. The Confedere States of America (1861-65) consisted of 11 states that seceded from the U.S.A. but were never recognized by President Lincoln, whose policy was that a national majority always trumphs a regional majority, no matter how much support the
break-away region has.

Posted by Seán Mac Curtáin | 11.09.09, 13:03 GMT

Let's take another - in part hypothetical - example. The French invade Algeria and then proceed to colonize parts of it with native French settlers - which indeed happened. Come independence from France, the part of Algeria with a white French majority decides it wants to stay part of France and forms the province of "Northern Algeria" in defiance of what the native Algerians want and what the substantial minority of native Algerians living in the new province want. Could one say that this new province constitutes a nation/state? Of course not.

Northern Ireland then is Europe's last relic of colonization and empire. It will come to an end one day as all empires do, but that day may be a long way away.

Posted by Serge | 11.09.09, 12:02 GMT

Watcher, so the USA... let me think, would the ALF, Army of God, JDL and Oklahoma City bombers agree with you? I'm so glad that the American population supports their entire constitution, such as the right to bear arms (continually being challenged in court and redefined). Democracy does not represent all of a nation, just a concensus.

Sean-'pro-British majority, which keeps on declining', is this guess-work as I cannot source anywhere, especially in light of inward migration to Northern Ireland over the last 10 years?

Posted by Bemused | 11.09.09, 09:16 GMT

Michael

There is talk of a new Stadium for the National Football Team (as recognised by the world governing body FIFA). It has little or nothing to do with the dfefinition of a Nation, after all, Wales also have a NATIONAL team and a NATIONAL stadium yet are basically in the same boat as ourselves.

I think you are looking for hairs to split!

Posted by RB | 11.09.09, 09:09 GMT

This is a naive letter as I agree with Bemused.

Posted by robbo | 10.09.09, 22:24 GMT

Northern Ireland is not a nation or a country. It is a province of the United Kingdom, and a part of the ancient Irish province of Ulster, carved out of the nation of Ireland - a nation recognized in British and international law since the Norman conquest in 1169 and before 1922 including the island of Ireland - due to a religious majority in the area wishing to break away and rule their own part of the island. Whether this was technically legal or not is questionable, if it was then it opens up any minority in any country which forms a majority in a certain area subsequently having a legal basis to claim separation from the mother country.

In any case, the separate existence of the six counties Northern Ireland has no basis in history and is a modern creation, one which if it weren't for colonization and implanted differences resulting therein would never have come about. Ironically, the Protestants in the area were some of the fiercest opponents of the unification with GB in 1801.

Posted by Serge | 10.09.09, 22:13 GMT

Michael poses a very interesting question. The entity being discussed is geoographically in Ireland, seperated from Britain by the sea but politically attached to that country. The British media frequently refer to it as "Ulster", and it is often described as a "British provence" in the U.S. Four of its six conuties have Irish majorities, as do all of its four cities. But it still has pro-British majority, which keeps on declining. A great many people in Britain make little or no distinction between the Irish, North or South.

Posted by Seán Mac Curtáin | 10.09.09, 21:41 GMT