To point out for the umpteenth time, it came up as a response to someone saying “Politics aside, Ulster IS part of the Republic”. That poster has since clarified what (s)he was saying, but what was originally written was incorrect as the majority of Ulster is not part of the Republic.
And that’s not even getting into the difference between nicknames, colloquial names and official names.
Yet the post I originally replied to, when all this started, was someone pointing out the inaccuracy of a statement like that.
I know they were wrong. My response was only in reference to you saying the OP was wrong to use the term. The fact is, nobody was confused as to what he was referring to in the OP.
Me, Me, I’m a sectarian-politically discordant Northern Irish person!
My father’s family are Protestant nationalists, and have been for at least 5 generations.
My maternal grandmother, a Catholic born in South Africa but resident in Northern Ireland for the last 30 years, on the other hand, is a royalist and an anglophile and thinks the status quo is much preferable to a United Ireland.
The census here asks religious rather than political affiliation- so the true numbers of people who have different political beliefs than their secatrian affiliation is unknown.
The question is phrased:
I am from a Protestant Background
I am from a Catholic Background
I am from neither a Protestant nor a Catholic background.
Now, my father is Protestant, my mother has one Catholic and one Jewish parent, and we were raised as sort of general judeo-christians but as definite Irish Nationalists. I tend tick the neither, but really I could tick both.
It isn’t a great question for children of mixed marriage, and certainly isn’t designed with the signficant numbers of Polish, Portuguese and Phillipino Catholics now living in Northern Ireland in mind either.
I’d rather they stopped using sectarian identifiers as a surrogate marker of political opinion altogether.
At least you can get it sent out to you in Ulster-Scots. 
To clarify, people are really discussing two different things here.
The geographic term “Ulster” refers to a province of Ireland. There are four provinces, Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connacht, and each is roughly a quarter of the island. The professional rugby teams of those names find their roots in amateur teams which represented the provinces.
Ulster is the northern province, which contains nine counties. When Ireland was partitioned in the 1920s, six of the Ulster counties remained with the UK. Three became part of the new independent state with the rest of Ireland. So, strictly Northern Ireland is only two-thirds of Ulster, and you will annoy other Ulstermen if you claim they are equivalent.
However, it is common for Unionist/Loyalist people in Northern Ireland to call it Ulster. Less common for Nationalists. It’s a cultural issue, about local identity, and not intended to be geographically exact. They are just saying, “We are not the same as the rest of the island. We are British by law or by loyalty, but born on this island. Northern Irishmen is too long to say, so we are Ulstermen.”
Lord Randolph Churchill wasn’t sure what he meant, since he was already in “the decline” that ended with his death. His brain wasn’t working very well. Wikipediasays that the cause apparently was* not* syphilis, as had long been assumed.
Ulster Scots has many similarities with written English.
If the English was written by a dyslexic from Ballymena.
Personally I feel it is more of a dialect than a language, but I won’t argue with those who feel differently.
I work for
An Roinn Sláinte, Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Sábháilteachta Poiblí.
or
Mannystrie o Poustie, Resydenter Heisin an Fowk Siccar
or
Department of Health, Housing and Social Services.
Yes, what is a language rather than dialect is as much a political issue as it is a linguistic one. I am an English/Scottish half breed and as such have been subjected to a lot of what people claim is “Scots”. It is apparently a separate language but I can pretty much understand it. I also speak Swedish, what with having lived in Sweden for over eleven years. I can read Norwegian and Danish and can speak to Norwegians (mostly). Danes I struggle with more down to accent than the language itself. Yet these are all separate languages. Linguistically they are very similar, but politically it is very important that they be different.
Another data point for this question:
The UUP formerly had a Roman Catholic MLA (Sir John Gorman).
I have a very vague notion that they also had MPs at the old Stormont parliament who were Roman Catholics.
My ill-informed guess is that most Roman Catholics who support the continuation of the Union in some form or other wouldn’t identify as “Unionist”, though.
The British use of “Éire” dates from the adoption of the 1937 constitution. Until then the name of the state in English was “Irish Free State”; this presented no practical difficulty in either jurisdiction. After the new constitution came into effect the use of the term “Ireland” not only presented a sort of ideological difficulty for the British, but it also presented a technical difficulty in that existing legislation dating from before Dec. 6, 1922 still referred to “Ireland”; in consequence, a 1938 British Act of Parliament introduced the term “Éire” to refer to what had been the Irish Free State, thus avoiding the difficulty. The Irish government seem to have acquiesced in this at the time, presumably on the principle that what the British did was of no concern to them.
The term “Éire”, like “Southern Ireland”, seem to be mostly Englishisms without any inherent deliberate political subtext; but are also used by the sort of NI unionist who likes making cheap jabs. See this story for the sort of mentality involved.
I would think the term to describe that is most neutral to all is “proscribed organisation”. Dad was asked if he was a member of such when he tried to cross the border in South Tyrone and found the Army discovered him to be a bit iffy looking.
AFAIK the vast majority of the Provisional IRA’s victims were members of the security forces i.e. the various UK police forces, and whatever Army regiments were based in the Province*. The CAIN project has the relevant statistics, such things as IIRC more PIRA men were killed by other PIRA men than by Loyalists. The bare numbers don’t cover the damage done to the fabric of the country though.
What’s ironic that Ireland and the United Ireland movement gets so much support in the US, when the Irish don’t seem to care too much about the US’s other project abroad, Israel.
It’s a bit much to see books written in that “language” inserted into the foreign language box in the kids section at the library though.
*We’ve had Ulster, lets throw Province in there too.
And by the same token, Sinn Féin formerly had a Protestant MLA, Billy Leonard.
This is the kind of propaganda that the IRA used in obtaining funding from innocent Irish-Americans.
First, a large proportion of those killed by the IRA were not in any security forces. They were innocent civilians bombed or shot in their normal lives. They died in random bombings in streets, pubs etc. They were murdered as “informers” or “collaborators” or just because they argued with the local IRA don. They were murdered in random sectarian killings to retaliate for atrocities by equally vicious Loyalist murders. They were sitting in a pub when the IRA blew it up.
Take a well-known example. The IRA often boasted that they killed Lord Mountbatten, a relation of the British Royal Family. They never mentioned that he was a sick old man in his eighties when murdered. They never mentioned that they also killed two children in the same bomb. Indeed, the IRA killers saw the children walking onto a boat with Mountbatten, and still pushed the detonator.
The total number of “members of the security forces”, who were not Irish born, but killed by the IRA was a handful. When you dig down, you will find that a large proportion of the murdered "members of the security forces " were Irish, not British.
They were
local Irish policemen serving in the Royal Ulster Constabulary (now the PSNI) - that is ordinary local Irish cops dealing with normal crime. Most were killed off-duty.
Irish soldiers serving in local Northern Ireland regiments of the British Army. Almost all of these were killed off duty. Contrary to the propaganda, the IRA almost never went head-to head with armed soldiers. The one time they tried it, they lost the battle.
part-time soldiers in the local reserve force. Again almost all of these were killed off-duty - e.g. as they drove to work, or out on a tractor working on the farm.
I have no idea of the ratio of civilians to security forces killed by the IRA. Are you disputing the claim that the IRA killed far more security forces than civilians. If you are. I’m not reading it in this post.
As to the ethnicity of the members of the security forces, it doesn’t really matter. If they’re in the uniform of the identified enemy, they’re a target. It is that simple, and I doubt the IRA people had any idea, or cared, whether the security force people were Irish or not.
Please note that I’m not saying this to justify what they did. They certainly used terror tactics and they certainly killed lots of innocent civilians along the way.
Deaths for which the IRA were responsible (1999 figures)
IRA 149
OIRA 10
IPLO 2
UDA/UFF 20
UVF 8
So 189 members of terror groups were killed by the IRA, including 149 of their own members.
British Army 438
SAS 12
RAF 4
RN 1
RUC 190
RUCR 83
UDR 176
RIR 6
TA 1
So 911 members of the various security forces in NI were killed by the IRA
Total for other security services such as Prison Service and Irish Police and Army, and British police = 35
Civilians killed amounted to 636.
So 936 members of different security forces versus 636 civilians killed by the IRA. (ETA, you could include the terror group numbers in the list of civilians killed too I suppose.)
I have no facts to back this up, but I would guess that that’s a “better” ratio than most revolutionary groups. And it’s way better than most armies do while at war.
It was a sad, bloody, state of affairs either way.
Truest statement I’ve read today.
Note that I was answering a specific post, which obscured the real issue. The IRA propaganda to Irish Americans implied they were fighting a war of independence against foreign soldiers occupying Irish territory. So, they referred to attacks on the “British security forces”. As An Gadai’s numbers show, those “security force” members were mainly Irish people, not foreign soldiers.
Note that the IRA had a policy of denying murders or atrocities where civilians were killed. Gerry Adams has confirmed as much in his comments about the Disappeared - the secret killings by the IRA where bodies were never found. He has tried to encourage IRA men to give information about the hidden graves of the victims, so that families can get closure.
So, An Gadai’s figures only relate to killings admitted by the IRA.
The figures come Malcolm Sutton’s Index on the CAIN site, which includes the disappeared among the dead and attributes each (presumed) death to the organisation believed to have been responsible.