Mentioned that I liked Bond movies and was

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I'm British, of course I love a curry. But they genuinely don't come with world class meat, as you say. Nor do Sunday roasts, so I obviously enjoy the gravy (although you dont want too much if there is stuffing- nothing worse than soggy stuffing).

And a nice, feisty peppercorn sauce on a steak is lovely. But if you give me a genuinely wonderful piece of steak, I want to taste it. It doesn't need smothering with anything. I just want to taste the meat. If you are going to give me an interesting sauce on the side I may well have a dip.....

Think of it like a fine single malt- you don't stick coke or ginger ale in it. But give me a shot of Teachers and I am drowning it in something just to keep it down

I m seriously, ****ing bored! And now I want a whiskey (with an e!). I think I have a 12 year old Jameson somewhere......

Para 2: As I say, then why put salt on? It's where you draw the line. I don't season my steak if I'm making a sauce, and I prefer French blue cheese to salt. {But again, this is just what we grew up with. We might as well go the full Wenger and argue about who has the prettiest wife at home.

Para 3: Agreed. But again, for me the steak is more about the texture than the taste cos I eat it blue. Give me a cheap bit of Aldi {I assume, never tried it} fillet cooked blue and I'll prefer that to the most expensive bit of rump {or whatever} over-cooked. {i.e more than at most a min a side.}

Para 4: I was until I watched the women's rugby. It's the only game I played {only until about 13 or so but I still played it for clubs on a Sunday as well as school age year B teams.} I watched {part of} the first 2 Eng games and enjoyed the fact that the girls could play the game to a very decent level while not having that "let's have both sides taking ages over a scrum and then collapsing them" that ruins the men's game at times. Eng lasses have greeat forward power and running backs, something I can't remember the Eng men's team having in my life time. {Even when we won the WC, it was basically forwrds and Johnny Wilkinson, no?} And to cap it all it was against the Convicts.

So I was able to avoid boredom for over 2 hrs by watching the Aussies lose. Tops.

Para 1: But there are curries with world class meat. What do you think the rich eat out there? That old Raj hotel in Delhi that Sir C stays at and I occasionally go to eat at. When I eventually persuaded the glw to eat there on her own - we had eaten there together 25 yrs ago = she said she'd had the best curry she'd had in India. Cos it's 30-odd quid for a dish, not a quid.

Likewise, she was seeing her posh, old mate in Kensington the other day. {Matey has a charity in Indian Tibet and got an audience with HHDL - and recently the MBE - for her efforts.} They went for an Indian opposite at some posh hotel. It's ?50 a plate but stunning, she said. You really don't think they use the best meat?

If you charge ?40+ for 200g max of lamb with spices, you expect very good lamb. You think all those Hindu billionaires go for the all you can eat buffet at the Margate Raj?

But as I say, this argument is solely about what we're used to.

Have you gone for the whiskey?

The sun will be over the yard arm soon so I can combine a trip to the shops with getting some tramp cider in.

[Peter]

Para 2: As I say, then why put salt on? It's where you draw the line. I don't season my steak if I'm making a sauce, and I prefer French blue cheese to salt. {But again, this is just what we grew up with. We might as well go the full Wenger and argue about who has the prettiest wife at home.

Para 3: Agreed. But again, for me the steak is more about the texture than the taste cos I eat it blue. Give me a cheap bit of Aldi {I assume, never tried it} fillet cooked blue and I'll prefer that to the most expensive bit of rump {or whatever} over-cooked. {i.e more than at most a min a side.}

Para 4: I was until I watched the women's rugby. It's the only game I played {only until about 13 or so but I still played it for clubs on a Sunday as well as school age year B teams.} I watched {part of} the first 2 Eng games and enjoyed the fact that the girls could play the game to a very decent level while not having that "let's have both sides taking ages over a scrum and then collapsing them" that ruins the men's game at times. Eng lasses have greeat forward power and running backs, something I can't remember the Eng men's team having in my life time. {Even when we won the WC, it was basically forwrds and Johnny Wilkinson, no?} And to cap it all it was against the Convicts.

So I was able to avoid boredom for over 2 hrs by watching the Aussies lose. Tops.

Para 1: But there are curries with world class meat. What do you think the rich eat out there? That old Raj hotel in Delhi that Sir C stays at and I occasionally go to eat at. When I eventually persuaded the glw to eat there on her own - we had eaten there together 25 yrs ago = she said she'd had the best curry she'd had in India. Cos it's 30-odd quid for a dish, not a quid.

Likewise, she was seeing her posh, old mate in Kensington the other day. {Matey has a charity in Indian Tibet and got an audience with HHDL - and recently the MBE - for her efforts.} They went for an Indian opposite at some posh hotel. It's ?50 a plate but stunning, she said. You really don't think they use the best meat?

If you charge ?40+ for 200g max of lamb with spices, you expect very good lamb. You think all those Hindu billionaires go for the all you can eat buffet at the Margate Raj?

But as I say, this argument is solely about what we're used to.

Have you gone for the whiskey?

The sun will be over the yard arm soon so I can combine a trip to the shops with getting some tramp cider in.

Your standard curry isn't made witg the best meat. Clearly there are exceptions, that i do not deny. I love a good tikka, just like a shish, if the meat is good. I don't like sauce on a kebab either and, coming from Palmers Green, I will not be lectured re kebabs!

Funnily enough, I never eat meat in India. I find the vegetable dishes are more interesting.and I've had too many doses of food poisoning....

And it was WES that mentioned salt. I was just agreeing about not needing sauce really.

I had a small whiskey and watched a documentary about the Easter Risisjg.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Your standard curry isn't made witg the best meat. Clearly there are exceptions, that i do not deny. I love a good tikka, just like a shish, if the meat is good. I don't like sauce on a kebab either and, coming from Palmers Green, I will not be lectured re kebabs!

Funnily enough, I never eat meat in India. I find the vegetable dishes are more interesting.and I've had too many doses of food poisoning....

And it was WES that mentioned salt. I was just agreeing about not needing sauce really.

I had a small whiskey and watched a documentary about the Easter Risisjg.

It's Sunday 1:40pm. Are you about cos I wanted to write something when the England innings ends as it will take a few mins.

Re: meat in India. Our best mate in Manikaran in the Parvati Valley made a curry for us. He asked whether we wanted mutton or chicken and the glw said mutton. We didn't realise this is the goat that they have in the butchers that doesn't even have a fridge.

She got really ill and Dr Joshi {God bless him} had to come every day from the next village down the valley {Kasol} to sort out the drip he'd put her on for 4 days.

But in Goa, my best mates owned and worked in a small restaurant. {Though the one who worked there has moved to a different place now but he still comes to meet me there.} He has tourist dishes as well as Indian, so I have the various local fishes in garlic butter sauce or fresh calamari in lemon butter sauce. All with chips and salad. ****ing lush.

Curries in Blighty and fish'n'chips in India. Pwoppa multi-culturalism, that. {Though their fish'n'chips is so much better than ours.}

Oh, yeah. So last night, when I went to get my tramp cider, I popped into Aldi and got a cheap rump steak and just to prove the point I cooked it with a St Agur sauce. When I put it on my plate with onion rings, Puddle Paws the cat jumped on the table and started licking the St Agur sauce on my plate. He's never tried it before and he loved it. He licked it all on his side and then pushed me out of the way and licked the rest of the plate and some of the sauce on the steak.

So PP agrees that you want a blue cheese sauce with your steak. He wouldn't would au poivre, at a guess. But he loved the St Agur one. Luckily I have loads left in the saucepan so I can let him have some more when I cook the rest of the steak later. He's all ready had his yellow fin tuna sashimi on the garden table. I got a 425g steak last week as well {glw's away, init, so can't be arsed to cook pwoppa.} Gave him some that night and some the next day. When I checked there was only 200g left so he'd done 8 oz to himself. On top of his tuna sashimi. Thank God Aldi's doing cheap, frozen yellow fin fillets now.

What was the Easter Uprising doc like?

The number of arguments I've had with the Irish when I point out that thanks to the 1911 Parl Act in the wake of the People's Budget, the Lords veto was removed if the bill passed the HoC 3 years on the trot. So after the bill passing the Commons in 1912 and '13 and being rejected by the Lords, when it passed in 1914 that was that.

When war broke out, all the Irish Home Rule MPs {on whom the Liberal govt had been relying since 1910} agreed to delay the implementation of HR until the war was over.

So in Dec 1914, the bill for HR of a united Ireland received Royal Assent.

And if the Paddies hadn't kicked off in Easter '16, they would have had Home Rule in 1919. For the whole of Ireland. They could have then become a dominion {as the Free State was}, prob around the time of the 1927 Balfour Declaration on the status of dominions in the empire and then could have become a republic after WW2, probably around the time they did - 1949 - after Indian independence had meant there was no point in fighting to keep the empire.

So all the Irish who moan about partition should blame the Easter rebels. Not GB.

[Peter]

It's Sunday 1:40pm. Are you about cos I wanted to write something when the England innings ends as it will take a few mins.

Re: meat in India. Our best mate in Manikaran in the Parvati Valley made a curry for us. He asked whether we wanted mutton or chicken and the glw said mutton. We didn't realise this is the goat that they have in the butchers that doesn't even have a fridge.

She got really ill and Dr Joshi {God bless him} had to come every day from the next village down the valley {Kasol} to sort out the drip he'd put her on for 4 days.

But in Goa, my best mates owned and worked in a small restaurant. {Though the one who worked there has moved to a different place now but he still comes to meet me there.} He has tourist dishes as well as Indian, so I have the various local fishes in garlic butter sauce or fresh calamari in lemon butter sauce. All with chips and salad. ****ing lush.

Curries in Blighty and fish'n'chips in India. Pwoppa multi-culturalism, that. {Though their fish'n'chips is so much better than ours.}

Oh, yeah. So last night, when I went to get my tramp cider, I popped into Aldi and got a cheap rump steak and just to prove the point I cooked it with a St Agur sauce. When I put it on my plate with onion rings, Puddle Paws the cat jumped on the table and started licking the St Agur sauce on my plate. He's never tried it before and he loved it. He licked it all on his side and then pushed me out of the way and licked the rest of the plate and some of the sauce on the steak.

So PP agrees that you want a blue cheese sauce with your steak. He wouldn't would au poivre, at a guess. But he loved the St Agur one. Luckily I have loads left in the saucepan so I can let him have some more when I cook the rest of the steak later. He's all ready had his yellow fin tuna sashimi on the garden table. I got a 425g steak last week as well {glw's away, init, so can't be arsed to cook pwoppa.} Gave him some that night and some the next day. When I checked there was only 200g left so he'd done 8 oz to himself. On top of his tuna sashimi. Thank God Aldi's doing cheap, frozen yellow fin fillets now.

What was the Easter Uprising doc like?

The number of arguments I've had with the Irish when I point out that thanks to the 1911 Parl Act in the wake of the People's Budget, the Lords veto was removed if the bill passed the HoC 3 years on the trot. So after the bill passing the Commons in 1912 and '13 and being rejected by the Lords, when it passed in 1914 that was that.

When war broke out, all the Irish Home Rule MPs {on whom the Liberal govt had been relying since 1910} agreed to delay the implementation of HR until the war was over.

So in Dec 1914, the bill for HR of a united Ireland received Royal Assent.

And if the Paddies hadn't kicked off in Easter '16, they would have had Home Rule in 1919. For the whole of Ireland. They could have then become a dominion {as the Free State was}, prob around the time of the 1927 Balfour Declaration on the status of dominions in the empire and then could have become a republic after WW2, probably around the time they did - 1949 - after Indian independence had meant there was no point in fighting to keep the empire.

So all the Irish who moan about partition should blame the Easter rebels. Not GB.

Doc was nothing i didnt already know....

By the time the home rule bill passed the Ulster Volunteer Force had signed up hundreds of thousands of men. I think the prospect of a united Ireland was pretty much off the table.

Rising was a rejection of home Rule altogether. I think it has taken on an undue significance in Ireland's history, mainly due to the public and British reaction to it.

I've always thought partition was inevitable given the political situation. Regrettable, but inevitable

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Doc was nothing i didnt already know....

By the time the home rule bill passed the Ulster Volunteer Force had signed up hundreds of thousands of men. I think the prospect of a united Ireland was pretty much off the table.

Rising was a rejection of home Rule altogether. I think it has taken on an undue significance in Ireland's history, mainly due to the public and British reaction to it.

I've always thought partition was inevitable given the political situation. Regrettable, but inevitable

No, there was a vastly different situation in 1919 compared to 1914. After we'd lost 750k men in WW1 there would have been absolutely no desire to continue fighting needlessly.

Imagine no 1916 uprising. In the Dec 1918 GE, the national govt would have won. The Irish HR MPs would have been returned. The govt would have implemented the HR that had received Royal Assent 4 years earlier. The govt and the public would have respected that the Irish had waited those 4 years for the war to be won.

Had Ulster tried to kick off, the public wouldn't have wanted any more warfare.

And just like we had loads of former squaddies and officers in the Specials and Black'n'Tans, we have had loads who would have signed up to fight Ulster proddies as it was a job.

Remember that while the Ulster lot had the support of NI proddies and the pro army officers in 1914, by 1919 we had millions of trained men from all over the country who couldn't really care less about Ulster.

So we'd have been able to beat Ulster, esp with the help and support of the Papists in Ireland. That's the point.

The situation that allowed Curragh in 1914 didn't exist in 1919. That's the point that many people miss.

It's basically the excuse the Irish make so they don't have to take the blame for their country's partition. Just like if the INC had accepted the 1942 Cripps Offer, then a united India would have become and dominion in 1945 and could have moved peacefully for full independence.

[Peter]

No, there was a vastly different situation in 1919 compared to 1914. After we'd lost 750k men in WW1 there would have been absolutely no desire to continue fighting needlessly.

Imagine no 1916 uprising. In the Dec 1918 GE, the national govt would have won. The Irish HR MPs would have been returned. The govt would have implemented the HR that had received Royal Assent 4 years earlier. The govt and the public would have respected that the Irish had waited those 4 years for the war to be won.

Had Ulster tried to kick off, the public wouldn't have wanted any more warfare.

And just like we had loads of former squaddies and officers in the Specials and Black'n'Tans, we have had loads who would have signed up to fight Ulster proddies as it was a job.

Remember that while the Ulster lot had the support of NI proddies and the pro army officers in 1914, by 1919 we had millions of trained men from all over the country who couldn't really care less about Ulster.

So we'd have been able to beat Ulster, esp with the help and support of the Papists in Ireland. That's the point.

The situation that allowed Curragh in 1914 didn't exist in 1919. That's the point that many people miss.

It's basically the excuse the Irish make so they don't have to take the blame for their country's partition. Just like if the INC had accepted the 1942 Cripps Offer, then a united India would have become and dominion in 1945 and could have moved peacefully for full independence.

My word. The sheer number of 'what ifs' in there.....

The national goverment did win in 1918 with the Conservatives the overwhelming majority and overhwelmingly supportive of unionists.

You are also overlooking the fact that the excluding the counties of Ulster was a significant debate in the passing of the 1914 bill and was kicked down the road by the act that suspended implementation. An amendment excluding Ulster was on the point of being approved before war broke out, and would have been had the unionists and nationalists managed to agree on it. At no point was that issue resolved in any way, shape or form.

Implementing home rule in Ulster would have required the equivalent of civil war. You are talking about invading and defeating Ulster. Implemented by a government dominated by unionists........

Home rule was delayed by the war and then by the Ulster issue. It was then shelved by the war of independence.

A lot of people seem to have developed this idea that unionists would have simply gone away or accepted it. I have literally no idea where that belief comes from....

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

My word. The sheer number of 'what ifs' in there.....

The national goverment did win in 1918 with the Conservatives the overwhelming majority and overhwelmingly supportive of unionists.

You are also overlooking the fact that the excluding the counties of Ulster was a significant debate in the passing of the 1914 bill and was kicked down the road by the act that suspended implementation. An amendment excluding Ulster was on the point of being approved before war broke out, and would have been had the unionists and nationalists managed to agree on it. At no point was that issue resolved in any way, shape or form.

Implementing home rule in Ulster would have required the equivalent of civil war. You are talking about invading and defeating Ulster. Implemented by a government dominated by unionists........

Home rule was delayed by the war and then by the Ulster issue. It was then shelved by the war of independence.

A lot of people seem to have developed this idea that unionists would have simply gone away or accepted it. I have literally no idea where that belief comes from....

It's counter-factual history so as you know, it can only work by comparing various different hypotheses.

Re: 1918. Yes, it was supported by Unionists, but that ignores the point that the Coupon Election was fought on an agreed platform. There's no way that DLG would have agreed to a govt that didn't implement the HR he'd fought for all his life and which had received Royal Assent.

So the Unionists would have had two choices. {And we have to remember that despite always being opposed to it, they agreed to the reform giving the vote to both totty and plebs. If they can change on that, they can change on Ireland. It was a new world that had been born by the war and they were having to adapt to the times.}

So in the 1918 Coupon agreements, the Tories could either have accepted HR as the price for being part of this new world. Or they could have had said no and decided to divide the country immediately by withdrawing from the coalition and fighting the election on whether we had HR or not.

Which is an even bigger gamble. They have no way of knowing to what extent plebs and totty would vote for them. And given reneging on the 1914 deal to implement HR when the war ended, the country would in effect blame the Tories for starting a needless civil war when we all thought we were going to have peace after five years of slaughter.

How many women would support that? Much of the left and trade unionists supported HR. To go with the Liberals. And all the Irish MPs. And DLG who'd won the war and was promising homes for heroes. You think the UK of 1918/19 with a near-full franchise would jeopardise all that simply to stop HR?

The exact arrangements for Ulster could have been dealt with during and after, if it were done peacefully. And remember this isn't 1914, when we have a small, professional army, officered exclusively by upper-class Tories. We have a huge army officered by loads of liberal poet poofs. It's an entirely different situation.

There is no way the squaddies would have voted to start a civil war when they're hoping to get back to their families.

There is no way the union could continue with Ireland still ruled from London. They'd lost that battle. So it was a question of how the changes came about and whether they had a seat at the table or not. They get to dominate a DLG led govt. If they pulled out and went to war with DLG, they were fighting the finest orator in politics who had just won the war and was promising a new country. If the Tories fought on this, they'd reunite the Liberal party and have them working with both Labour and the Irish MPs.

There's no way they'd have won on the new franchise. Which is why they wouldn't have been so stupid. They'd lost the People's Budget in 1909/10, the Lords veto in 1911, are the votes for totty and votes for plebs arguments by 1918. And likewise, there was no point in fighting against HR when the union could not continue in its present form.

Irish HR MPs had fought in the war - I've been to Willie Redmond's grave in Belgium.

And the other thing to remember if Ulster tried to kick off is George V. Very underrated monarch. He forced through the People's Budget and 1911 Parl Act by promising to create loads of Liberal peers if the Tories vetoes them in the Lords. He also worked really well with the first Lab govt in 1924.

If he'd told the unionists that he didn't want them starting a civil war in his name, then it's catch 22 for them.

We know how GB changed between 1939 and '45, leading to the Lab landslide. But the change in 1914-18 was even greater with the huge expansion in suffrage.

And that partially answers your comment: "A lot of people seem to have developed this idea that unionists would have simply gone away or accepted it. I have literally no idea where that belief comes from.... "

It's a different country with a different army and a vastly different electorate than in 1914. If they'd started a civil war, against the wishes of the GB public, voters, govt, men under arms, and very possibly the King, they'd have lost any support they had.

Just like the Tories dealing with this changed and changing world, Ulster would have had to deal with it too.

You're talking about them starting a civil war they couldn't win, without the support of the army, GB state or monarch, when the whole country just wanted peace.

Like the Tories being in a pro-HR coalition with DLG, they'd be much better off accepting the new reality and having a seat at the table.

I'm not saying it would have all been milk and honey, but they wouldn't have been in a position to prevent it with a war weary country with a new franchise totally opposed to them starting another war on British soil.

A lot of this is counter factual what-ifs about the specifics. But the way the country had changed is irrefutable. They'd have been far better off going for some form of autonomy or special status for Ulster, and thinking ahead, to have demanded some sort of veto on further constitutional change. Which could well have been offered - were assuming that it's the moderate Irish MPs of 1914 in charge of Ireland - as they'd have got HR and that can could be kicked down the road.

The only reason that Ulster was able to remain fully British is because the idiots in Dublin at Easter '16 kicked off.

The UK of 1919 was a totally different country to that of 1914 and there's nothing a few million in Ulster could do to change that.

[Peter]

It's counter-factual history so as you know, it can only work by comparing various different hypotheses.

Re: 1918. Yes, it was supported by Unionists, but that ignores the point that the Coupon Election was fought on an agreed platform. There's no way that DLG would have agreed to a govt that didn't implement the HR he'd fought for all his life and which had received Royal Assent.

So the Unionists would have had two choices. {And we have to remember that despite always being opposed to it, they agreed to the reform giving the vote to both totty and plebs. If they can change on that, they can change on Ireland. It was a new world that had been born by the war and they were having to adapt to the times.}

So in the 1918 Coupon agreements, the Tories could either have accepted HR as the price for being part of this new world. Or they could have had said no and decided to divide the country immediately by withdrawing from the coalition and fighting the election on whether we had HR or not.

Which is an even bigger gamble. They have no way of knowing to what extent plebs and totty would vote for them. And given reneging on the 1914 deal to implement HR when the war ended, the country would in effect blame the Tories for starting a needless civil war when we all thought we were going to have peace after five years of slaughter.

How many women would support that? Much of the left and trade unionists supported HR. To go with the Liberals. And all the Irish MPs. And DLG who'd won the war and was promising homes for heroes. You think the UK of 1918/19 with a near-full franchise would jeopardise all that simply to stop HR?

The exact arrangements for Ulster could have been dealt with during and after, if it were done peacefully. And remember this isn't 1914, when we have a small, professional army, officered exclusively by upper-class Tories. We have a huge army officered by loads of liberal poet poofs. It's an entirely different situation.

There is no way the squaddies would have voted to start a civil war when they're hoping to get back to their families.

There is no way the union could continue with Ireland still ruled from London. They'd lost that battle. So it was a question of how the changes came about and whether they had a seat at the table or not. They get to dominate a DLG led govt. If they pulled out and went to war with DLG, they were fighting the finest orator in politics who had just won the war and was promising a new country. If the Tories fought on this, they'd reunite the Liberal party and have them working with both Labour and the Irish MPs.

There's no way they'd have won on the new franchise. Which is why they wouldn't have been so stupid. They'd lost the People's Budget in 1909/10, the Lords veto in 1911, are the votes for totty and votes for plebs arguments by 1918. And likewise, there was no point in fighting against HR when the union could not continue in its present form.

Irish HR MPs had fought in the war - I've been to Willie Redmond's grave in Belgium.

And the other thing to remember if Ulster tried to kick off is George V. Very underrated monarch. He forced through the People's Budget and 1911 Parl Act by promising to create loads of Liberal peers if the Tories vetoes them in the Lords. He also worked really well with the first Lab govt in 1924.

If he'd told the unionists that he didn't want them starting a civil war in his name, then it's catch 22 for them.

We know how GB changed between 1939 and '45, leading to the Lab landslide. But the change in 1914-18 was even greater with the huge expansion in suffrage.

And that partially answers your comment: "A lot of people seem to have developed this idea that unionists would have simply gone away or accepted it. I have literally no idea where that belief comes from.... "

It's a different country with a different army and a vastly different electorate than in 1914. If they'd started a civil war, against the wishes of the GB public, voters, govt, men under arms, and very possibly the King, they'd have lost any support they had.

Just like the Tories dealing with this changed and changing world, Ulster would have had to deal with it too.

You're talking about them starting a civil war they couldn't win, without the support of the army, GB state or monarch, when the whole country just wanted peace.

Like the Tories being in a pro-HR coalition with DLG, they'd be much better off accepting the new reality and having a seat at the table.

I'm not saying it would have all been milk and honey, but they wouldn't have been in a position to prevent it with a war weary country with a new franchise totally opposed to them starting another war on British soil.

A lot of this is counter factual what-ifs about the specifics. But the way the country had changed is irrefutable. They'd have been far better off going for some form of autonomy or special status for Ulster, and thinking ahead, to have demanded some sort of veto on further constitutional change. Which could well have been offered - were assuming that it's the moderate Irish MPs of 1914 in charge of Ireland - as they'd have got HR and that can could be kicked down the road.

The only reason that Ulster was able to remain fully British is because the idiots in Dublin at Easter '16 kicked off.

The UK of 1919 was a totally different country to that of 1914 and there's nothing a few million in Ulster could do to change that.

The issue was never with Home Rule, it was about who it applied to. And it is rather pointless to suggest that an electorate who voted overwhelmingly for a unionist party would have demanded the imposition of home rule on Ulster.

When Asquith announced royal assent to the bill without the amendment for Ulster Bonar Law and the Conservatives walked out of the chamber. The prospect of them agreeing to this after the war was unthinkable. And by 1918 they dominated the coalition government.

The loss of the balance of the power meant that Irish MPs, as for many a decade, were now irrelevant. Even if they had been Home Rulers rather Sinn Fein they held no sway over the government.

And you have to remember what you are talking about here. The military imposition of forcing a section of the UK to leave who wanted to remain. It is unthinkable, regardless of who held power. Asquith was not prepared to do it in 1914.... hence his proposed amendment to exclude Ulster.

One of the main arguments was the belief that Ulster was 'bluffing'. Surely the subsequent century has demonstrated quite clearly that they weren't.

Both society and our democracy had changed beyond recognition by 1918. But the commitment to the Unionists hadn't. If anything, it hardened.

And they did provide special status for Ulster, that is precisely what the Government of Ireland Act did. It created a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland with a provision that they and the Southern assembly could unite if they wished. They did not WISH! And the Anglo-Irish Treaty allowed them to opt out of the Free State, which they did.

To put all this down to the Rising is absurd. It ignores the quite astonishing acts of defiance between 1910 and 1914. As well as the gigantic shift in representation at Westminster between 1914 and 1918.

Your last sentence is just odd. I agree it was a totally different country but there clearly was plenty that a few million in Ulster could do about it. They did it!

[redgunamo]

The issue was never with Home Rule, it was about who it applied to. And it is rather pointless to suggest that an electorate who voted overwhelmingly for a unionist party would have demanded the imposition of home rule on Ulster.

When Asquith announced royal assent to the bill without the amendment for Ulster Bonar Law and the Conservatives walked out of the chamber. The prospect of them agreeing to this after the war was unthinkable. And by 1918 they dominated the coalition government.

The loss of the balance of the power meant that Irish MPs, as for many a decade, were now irrelevant. Even if they had been Home Rulers rather Sinn Fein they held no sway over the government.

And you have to remember what you are talking about here. The military imposition of forcing a section of the UK to leave who wanted to remain. It is unthinkable, regardless of who held power. Asquith was not prepared to do it in 1914.... hence his proposed amendment to exclude Ulster.

One of the main arguments was the belief that Ulster was 'bluffing'. Surely the subsequent century has demonstrated quite clearly that they weren't.

Both society and our democracy had changed beyond recognition by 1918. But the commitment to the Unionists hadn't. If anything, it hardened.

And they did provide special status for Ulster, that is precisely what the Government of Ireland Act did. It created a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland with a provision that they and the Southern assembly could unite if they wished. They did not WISH! And the Anglo-Irish Treaty allowed them to opt out of the Free State, which they did.

To put all this down to the Rising is absurd. It ignores the quite astonishing acts of defiance between 1910 and 1914. As well as the gigantic shift in representation at Westminster between 1914 and 1918.

Your last sentence is just odd. I agree it was a totally different country but there clearly was plenty that a few million in Ulster could do about it. They did it!

Northern Ireland was all about fly fishing rights and privileges for Westminster worthies and Merri Street mandarins and Stormont stalwarts, and their benefactors and friends. I spent a short time in the middle of it.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Northern Ireland was all about fly fishing rights and privileges for Westminster worthies and Merri Street mandarins and Stormont stalwarts, and their benefactors and friends. I spent a short time in the middle of it.

Genuinely interested - how and why were you in the middle of all the NI madness?

[redgunamo]

Genuinely interested - how and why were you in the middle of all the NI madness?

Served there for ten months or so. Back then, I was young and foolish and fresh out of the Academy. The colonel and I shared a love of field sports so I was taken along as his bagman. Beautiful country.

[redgunamo]

Oh no, not at all. He was forced to agree to it to make the peace and swore HE would not break the peace they'd made. Which is why Michael waited until he was dead before he killed the other families and moved to Vegas

The. Corleone family were reluctantly and distantly involved in drugs and got out as soon as they could.

Nothing to do with the drugs business, it was about the violence. You know, Women's Lib. War, Abortion and a' that.

"This must all end!" as the lady said. And she had a point; it's no good raising your sons until their twenties, just to then send them off to die in some silly war either at home or overseas. In that case, women may just as well go and get a job instead.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Served there for ten months or so. Back then, I was young and foolish and fresh out of the Academy. The colonel and I shared a love of field sports so I was taken along as his bagman. Beautiful country.

What unit, btw?

{My best mate from my OU history degree is a retired RAF Wing Commander. About a decade older than me - he's early 60s. We both got firsts. Me doing an MA in WW1 studies got him to do one in WW2 studies. It's weird, cos his FB page is full of RAF officers and my glw's is full of crusty travellers. So both our sets of friends were initially shocked when the two of us were chatting history and politics as mil officers and crusties would normally expect to be on different sides of the barricades. He's a lovely chap and a great historian/mil-historian. We bonded on the first course we did together, which was Europe from the late middle ages, over a shared interest in WW1. And while I talk about Indian spirituality with my mates, with him it's about the British Indian army as he knows I've gone native.}