Homophobia

I have been incredibly lucky in that in my life since coming out; I have never experienced any form of personal homophobic abuse. Sure I have had snide comments made, but they have never been direct and they have never been anything too serious other than the traditional 'religious' side of it. That was until today, and what surprised me most was that it came from someone who I thought was a very good friend of mine.

I went out with my sister and our mutual friend, who for the purpose of this blog shall be called Sarah. Now Sarah and I  have been good friends for many years, I know and get on with her mother very well, in fact I used to spend time sitting in with her mum when Sarah wasn't there and I know her family well. We went out and had a very enjoyable day. The day was turning out to be a very enjoyable day especially seeing as I was not looking forward to it in the first place, for financial reasons. So before we went to the cinema that night we stopped in McDonalds where the laughs and jokes continued.

My sister has been in a relationship with a guy for a while now and I constantly joke about her getting married and having children and basically planning out her whole life for her. I told her she isn't allowed to have a child until she is married and that I would want our children to be about the same age so they can be good friends as cousins. This is what the conversation went like after:

Sarah: 'You want what?'
Me: 'Our children to be the same age so they can grow up together'
Sarah: 'What do you mean?'
Me: 'Well I want to adopt so Kylie's (my sister) child has to be born after she is married so it gives me enough time to find someone to adopt with.
Sarah: 'Well honestly I would rather have Kylie have a child before marriage than have someone like you adopt'
Me: '..... sorry what?'
Sarah: 'Well I just don't think people like you should be allowed to adopt'

Well I wanted to scream, cry and slap her all at the same time! I just couldn't believe what I had just heard and even though I love to cause a scene I just was not in the mood so I just sat there in silence. I constantly got snide comments from my sister and her about how I was in a 'huff' etc. I still just sat there and shrugged. We where supposed to go to the cinema, but the film was sold out so I just said I wanted to go home. They brought me home and drove away. I didn't want to get my parents involved so I never said anything and just let it all slide. When I went up to my room it took every ounce of strength not to cry.

About 20 minutes later I got a BBM saying 'Why you always go on wee huffs when I'm with yous! You just ruined a good wee day'. Again it took everything I had not to bitch back at her but it wasn't worth it so I just dropped it. Until my sister came home. She stormed into my room claiming I ruined the whole day and I didn't have to go into a mood about everything. That was the final straw. I stood up and started screaming at her telling her how dare she side with her and that I was her own brother. She tried to fight her corner but I just slamed my door and started to cry.

My mother and father came upstairs at this point. Well my parents never really had a good relationship with me since I came out and I didn't know what was to happen next. But my mother sat with me and let me cry. Then she went to my sister and started fighting my corner which made me cry even more, this time with happiness. She said Sarah's name wasn't to be spoken in this house again, my sister was free to be friends with her or whatever but she was no longer welcome in this house and will have nothing more to do with her.

I was so proud of my mother. All I could muster to her was a mouthed 'Thank You' after it all.

The thing was if it had have been anyone else I wouldn't have cared. I also don't care if any of my friends have the same opinions but they have no need to voice them and neither did she. I don't agree with some of my friends life choices but I stick by them and support them because that is what friends do. To me it is simple, if the choice that friend makes does not effect your friendship in anyway then there is no need to voice negative opinion. Sarah could have spent the rest of her life disagreeing with my choice of adoption but as long as she supported me when I needed it I honestly would not have cared.

To me homophobia is not the problem. The problem is when a friend decides that you have become a different person because of your sexuality. It is when they decide in their heads that  your personality has changed or your humour or your friendship. That is the problem. I have number of friends who I know are uncomfortable and in some cases have a problem with my sexuality, but they don't voice it to me and tell me I should change or that they disapprove of me and in fact some of them are very close friends to me. Sexuality should not effect friendship, just like the colour of your skin, the colour of your hair, your weight, your looks, your shoe size or even if your disabled. It is the person inside that defines friendship. When it comes to me homophobia only becomes a problem when other people make it into a problem.

Whether you are gay, straight, black, white, disabled, ginger or anything that makes you 'different' I will not judge our friendship on that, I will judge it on who you are inside. Is that not the way it is supposed to be?

2012

So 2011 is coming to a close and 2012 is slowly creeping towards us. There are many, many speculations as to what 2012 will bring us, and I am sure many changes will happen whether they be world changes or more likely, personal changes. I do not believe in any form of 'Rapture', and that we shall live life as normal and by 2013 another rapture date will be set for us all to fear about. The only thing I fear is a Dalek breaking free in the salt plains of Utah and planning to kill everything on Earth, for me that is more likely than a religious war between good and evil.

(If you get the reference then I love you)

On Christmas Day I got a 2012 diary from Santa and it made me think, what have I got planned for 2012? What do I hope to achieve by the end of the year? Honestly, I didn't think I could answer either of those. I sat down later that day to fill dates into my diary, which I must say I have a great love of doing, and I wrote very little in it in fact I only wrote three things in it. Looking at what I did write, it makes me think about what I might hope and plan to actually achieve in 2012.

Relationships.
I will admit that I noted down what I hope to be the year anniversary between me and my boyfriend. I have never been in a relationship that has lasted anywhere near a year but this one I hope lasts the year and beyond. I think me writing that there confirms the fact that I believe that it actually might, and I sincerely hope that it does.
I always worry about growing old alone. Not just being single, but being truly alone and having nobody. I have felt it more these past few months than ever before. In regards to my job I get a flat paid for me, so I live rent free. However this flat is where I live. Alone. I have plenty of friends who I go out and socialise with and hang out with, but when I wake up in the morning and when I come home at night I feel more alone than I have ever felt before.
All my life I lived with my family, knowing that throughout the day I would have contact with them. Then when I moved to university I shared a living environment with 18 people, which made it impossible to ever be left alone. But now there is only me. When I am in my flat by myself I feel lost, trapped, alone. I miss that constant physical contact with another human being. I guess what I want and need out of 2012 is to keep the relationships I have, and strengthen and grow the ones that are just beginning.

Stirling.
The second thing I noted in my diary was 'Going back Home'. I noticed after I marked the date that I never wrote 'Stirling' or 'University', I wrote 'Home'. I guess this is true, Stirling is my home now. I spend most of the year in Scotland and will be spending around 9 months of 2012 there, so why shouldn't it be my home now. They always say 'home is where the heart is' and my heart is truly in Stirling. I no longer see Northern Ireland as home any more, this is where I was born, Lisburn is my home town but not my home.
When I come home I want nothing more than to get back to Stirling, I hate being back home, especially under the rule of my mother. When I am in Stirling I am my own man, I am independent but while I am in Northern Ireland I hear the phrase 'while you are under my house you abide by my rules' far too often. I love my family and always will, but once you get a taste of independence and freedom you don't want to be caged up any more.
I have said to my parents that next Christmas I might only come home for Christmas week and be back in Stirling for New Years, who knows if that will happen but it is what I want. 2012 will see me moving further from my family and see the beginning and continuation of my own life, as my own man.

Growing Up.
The third and final thing I wrote in my diary is the one thing that frightens me about 2012 more than any Rapture ever could, my 20th birthday. After February I won't be a teenager any more and that scares the life out of me. I know it really is no difference but it just makes me realise that I am growing up and I am maturing. A friend said to me that since September she has seen me grow up and mature right before her very eyes. I laughed at her when she said it, but it is true and I can see it myself. I suppose that is something to be proud of.
But it makes me wonder, did I make the most of my teenage life? I know I am only turning 20 and have my whole life ahead of me, but do I have the same opportunities I might have missed out on? Have I really lived life to its fullest? Then I think to myself there is nothing stopping me from doing that now, and that no I haven't missed out on anything or wasted my teenage years. I have changed a great deal since I was 13, all for the better and surely that is what is more important. The final date in my diary scares me, but it also reminds me that there is always enough time to live life by the fullest and do what I want to do!


Writing this blog has made me realise that the one second that changes a minute to a new hour. an hour to a new day and a day to new year will not change one thing about me. 1st of January 2012 marks nothing more than a new day, a new calendar on the wall and the beginning of a few weeks of embarrassing yourself while you still write the year as 2011. Sure it may feel like a fresh start to some but to others it will be a fresh start because they are the ones who take every single say as a fresh start to do something good and to better their life. Sure these may be goals I have for 2012 but everyday will be filled with a fresh and ever changing goal as everyday shapes who I am and who I am becoming.

I Don't Believe in Gay Marriage!

When I grow up I want to be a gay politician, live in a gay house, cook gay dinner, watch gay tv, have a gay marriage, grow old with my gay husband and have gay kids.
NO!
When I grow up I want to be a politician, live in a house, cook dinner, watch tv, have a marriage, grow old with my husband and have a kid.
Just because I am gay does NOT mean that everything in my life is gay. So why should I have a 'gay marriage', why does it have to be labelled because of my sexuality, why can't I just get married?


In saying that though, I think the idea of marriage needs to be reviewed. Marriage used to be all about religion and being seen as a couple in the eyes of God, but not everyone believes in God so why should marriage still revolve around him? Sure you can get married in a Civil Ceremony but they still talk about being under the 'eyes of God'. I'm not a firm believer in God so why should I get married under his supervision and I am pretty sure atheists would feel the same.


Not only that, but many religions do not want to allow gays to get married, because of this religious belief of marriage, so why should we make them? Why should we stand and tell them that their religion is wrong? Everyone has an opinion, everyone has beliefs. Who are we to make them change them? Who made us God? Nobody. So instead of forcing them to change their views of marriage, why don't we change ours.

Marriage is a legally binding institution that defines how property, pensions, employment benefits, tax-credits, child support and inheritance and tenancy agreements are treated if one partner in the marriage dies, or the marriage comes to an end. -  UK Law

We need to strengthen the idea that marriage is not just a religious thing, but it is a contract between two people, sometimes for reasons other than religion; social, economic, spiritual and even just the emotional attachment that humans have to be with someone. We need to have two different forms of marriage. For the sake of argument I will call them 'Religious Marriage' and 'State Marriage'.


This solution is basically already in place in many countries, but it needs to be reinforced and strengthened and it needs to be seen as both marriages being different entities but still supporting the same basis. 


Religious Marriage:
You go to a church, or whichever place of worship you have, and have a traditional (or not) ceremony. You get married under the eyes of God and your protect the sanctity of marriage. You are not effecting anyone else, you are doing it by your own religion and that is that. You are now married under the eyes of God. But not the state. If you want to be married under the eyes of the state, to gain all the advantages of being married, you sign a document along with your Minister (or equivalent) and you are now married under the eyes of the state. Sounds pretty simple and is basically the same procedure which happens in today's society.


But the things is, not all people want this, Atheists for example, and then many religious groups do not want certain groups to get married in a church, Gays for example. So for this we have State Marriage.


State Marriage:
You got to a government approved building, or an alternative setting pre-arranged, such as libraries, beaches or even your own house, and have a wedding ceremony. You get married under the eyes of the state. The ceremony is not based on God or religion or anything and you sign a few papers along with the official who married you and you are now married under the eyes of the state, being able to enjoy the advantages it brings. This way you have not interfered with any religion and have not destroyed the 'sanctity of marriage'.


Is it just me or this not common sense. There should be a separation of church and state. Why should a state of elected officials be told by a religious body who does and doesn't have the right to get married? At the same time why should a religious body, which has been around for thousands of years, be told who they can and cannot stop getting married. It is unfair and unjust on both occasions. This way there is no confusion as to who (everyone) can get married.


Religious people can get married under the eyes of God and be happy knowing they are continuing in a thousand year old tradition while groups just as gays and atheists can get married under the eyes of the state knowing they are not infringing on the religion of others. This way different churches and different religions can choose whether or not they want gay marriage in their church. This is not stopping gays from getting married in a church, this is a solution to prevent from forcing view points on one another.


My name is Nathan Dickson and one day I want to grow up and get married. I don't want a 'gay marriage' I want a marriage. I want to be able to live my life free from religious constraints and free to marry who I please. Is that so hard to ask. Why does religion have to be brought in to it? All I want is to be able to enjoy the benefits being married has in a state and under the eyes of the law.

It's not the size of the Army, it is the Force of the Attack!

So I have studied many battles in my years of being a History student and I have learnt that it is not the size of the army that matters, but it is many other factors that determine a victory or not. Like what can you actually do with the army that you have? How successful has your army been in the past? Does your army have a reputation? The list goes on and on.

Compared to America, Vietnam had a very small army. America had this huge reputation about how it had never lost a war and was always victorious. Yet, Vietnam still won. Size isn't everything and America needed to learn this. Sure America's size had got it through some pretty good times in the past, but this time its size would not get it the victory it needed. Strategy and tactics is what is needed. Vietnam showed that sometimes a full out attack is not always the way to go, sometimes you need to warm up first. Guerilla Warfare got them through the war very successfully. They showed America that even though they had a small army, by use of small short attacks they could get the result that was required. It is not the size of the army, but all about how you use what you have got.

China's 'Ever Victorious Army' is another example of an army was ever victorious even though it encountered armies which where much bigger than it was. Here the battles where won because of training. If an army knows what it is doing and is well equipped it can defeat a less educated army simply. The Ever Victorious Army where very well trained not only in combat but also in strategy and used this to take down even the greatest of foes. This army is a prime example of showing us that it is not the size of the army,  but it is all about knowing what you are doing and not just about storming the keep.

During the American Civil War there where plenty occasions where battles where won by smaller forces. The Battle of Chanellorsville is one of these such occasions. The Confederacy force defeated the Union force even though it was fighting an army over double its size! The Confederacy used a number of different tactics throughout the battle from splitting it's troops to using defensive measure mixed with all out assaults. By varying its tactics it was able to successfully win the battle. We can see here that again it is not the size of the army that counts it is how you deliver your attack, by using different tactics and trying different things you will always come out with a better battle!

So from the three examples shown I think it is clear to say that the leader of the bigger army is not always going to be the most successful leader. To be a successful leader you need to work to your advantages. First of all you need to know what you are doing, if you don't know how to have a battle then you are screwed as the outcome is not going to be pretty and you will make a fool of yourself. You need to be able to know not only your tactics, but your opponents tactics, by knowing how each army is going to react you will give yourself a much better outcome than not planning your attack. Know what works for you. If a leader has a specific tactic that guarantees victory, use it, but know when to use it and how often to use it as too much of a good thing is not always a good thing. It is not about how big your army is, it is about the force of the attack and how big of an impact you make. There is no point winning a battle if it is never going to be celebrated in history as being a great battle. Remember there is a difference between a victory and a historical victory.


AND YES if you haven't already realised this blog was all about sex!

A Hypnotist, A Blue Movie and A Strip Show!

So this is going to be more of a personal blog, I hope to do a few more of these and link them to my YouTube videos and have the two inter-related. It might not stay like this, but we shall see how it goes.

So last night (Friday 16th September) I had just planned to have a quiet night in and basically do nothing, but my friend asked me to go down to the Union and have a little drink with her. Never saying no to a free a drink I went ahead. Turns out the Stirling Uni Rag Pub Quiz was on, with only the two of us we thought we might as well give it a go and have a laugh in the process. 'We can't afford a team name' was born and the quiz set off.

We didn't start off too well, but eventually we pulled our way up and came out on 4th place out of about 8 teams. The team that did win had 12 people in it, breaking the '6 per team' rule but, what ever I am not bitter, we had a laugh and enjoyed ourself. One of the winners won tickets to see the Hypnotist, who was there as part of our Freshers week, they had two spare tickets so kindly donated them to my friend and I, we happily accepted and headed down for further free fun.

I had never been to a hypnotist before and really wanted to give it a go. We got there about 5 minutes before the show started and we had no where to sit, being slightly tipsy and realising if I volunteered I would be given a seat I decided to 'fuck it' and go up on stage. After a few exercises to see how easy it was for the hypnotist to put us under he choose his victims and put us to sleep.

Can I just point out that every time he put me to sleep I woke up and there was drool everywhere, it was NOT a pretty sight I must say!

The hypnotist then went on to have a little bit of fun with us, first off he had us pretending we where the best pianists of all time, now the whole thing is kind of like a dream to me but, I kind of remember kicking my legs and waving about during this. I have a funny feeling I thought I was Jean Martyn off this years Britain's Got Talent! If you don't know who that us click here and that will give you an idea of how I was getting on.

About to rock the house with our Pianos

 He then went on to convince us that we where on a plan to Caribbean and where enjoying our in flight film. Which started off as a comedy making us laugh hysterically, anyone who knows me will know my laugh is HIGHLY embarrassing to begin with anyway, a horror film which made us scream, but the worst was to come. The in flight film suddenly turned in a 'Blue Movie' which was okay, until he told us someone we knew was in it, and then that we where in it as well. I will not inform you who was in my film, although ask any of the 100+ audience members and they will surely tell you!

On to the half time show!

At half time I thought to myself great the horror is over, sadly not, we where brought backstage and told to dress up. Turns out the guys who volunteered where going to BE the half time show. This is where night gets that little bit more interesting for the audience and a little bit more embarrassing for the rest of us! The half time show was opened by Diana Ross, and then along came Abba.

Yes that is me in a ginger wig thinking I was Abba, all singing all dancing.

So after Abba, Dolly Parton made an appearance, as did Cheryl Cole, Lady Gaga also turned up, not to mention Kylie Minogue  but then along game Jedward....

Surprisingly I actually liked my hair like that, wasn't 100% sure about the Silver Jumpsuit though

After a performance by Freddie Mercury and  Michael Jackson half time was over and if I thought I would get off lightly boy was I wrong.

The boys where then given these magical glasses which allowed us to see all of the girls in the room naked, upon realising this wasn't really my thing I got a new pair which allowed me to see the guys naked, I have to say it was a lovely sight, but honestly, I don't need no glasses to see the guys I want naked.

My glasses where picked just for me, green, how original giving the 'Irish Guy' the green glasses!

So after having a little but more fun with us, making us believe we where the ones actually naked, then making us believe we had lost our penis' and then finally returning them to us, but to my joy it had grew significantly larger (not that it was needed mind you). After making us believe we where part of the Russian Ballet dancing to Swan Lake the audience decided I was the best dancer (thanks audience) so I was so very kindly hypnotised into believing that I was the one and only Michael Flatley. Now on a normal day I like to Irish Dance around my room when B*Witched comes on my Ipod, but this was just horrible!

Showing off my true Irish Heritage!

Coming to the end of the show now and the Hypnotist thought he was being a bit harsh on us so he thought he would give us a parting gift. The best orgasm we had ever experienced. Whenever he shook our hand we would receive said gift, apart from me. Turns out I was made to chase him about and force him to shake my hand. Which was embarrassing enough, until everyone got to witness me believing I was having an orgasm.

Best Orgasm Face EVER!

 Was so good I literally fell straight to the floor.

Was this the end of the night? No? How should any good show end? That's right! With the Full Monty!

Why I had a chair I will never know....

 Waking up and thinking wondering why I was basically naked in front of 100 people!

So yeh, this was my Hypnosis experience. The whole thing was a bit of a blur. I can kind of remember everything happening, although it feels like a dream. It is hard to explain little bits keep coming back to me. I knew what I was doing the whole time, I think, but I just couldn't stop myself.

None the less, I had an AMAZING night, I enjoyed myself, got a few cheers at the end and a few handshakes, and now it would seem I have no shame whatsoever within Stirling University!

The 'Right' Way to Go

Tough on causes of crime, tougher on crime.

I am a believer that there are causes to crimes. Every action has a cause. Growing up in a council estate is not a cause for crime. Yes in some cases but not in all. Dropping out of school is not a cause for crime. Yes in some cases but not in all. Crime is committed because people think there is nothing wrong with their action, they can get away with it, don't care what happens to them or that conditions in prison are better than those they currently face. Yes some of these situations should be brought to a position of importance. However rulings on those that do commit crimes should be reformed first.
What really annoys me is that people commit crimes and then get away with them. If a criminal pleads guilty to a crime they are given a less harsh sentence or on some occasions are set free all together. I am sorry but this is wrong. People should not be rewarded for admitting to a crime. 'Do the crime do the time.' If you are not prepared for the consequences don't kill the person in the first place. People who commit crimes need to be given harsher, longer sentences. Bring in more life sentences if you ask me.

Not enough money to accommodate more prisoners.

This may be true but that is because too much money is spent on prisons. When you go to prison you go to be punished. Yet for some people prison is a life of luxury. It is a common occurrence for some people to commit crimes because when they are sent to prison they are given rooms with Sky TV and a Playstation 3. I am sorry but that is wrong. Less money needs to spend on accommodating prisoners. Human Rights has nothing to do with it. You commit a crime you get punished, you get put into jail, your Human Rights are stripped down to the basics. You live in a cell with a bed, a toilet and a sink. You are there because you are a horrible person who breaks the law, not to live a better life than you would on the outside.

Less Police, more powers.

I recently read an article about a Police Officer who got an award for going into a gang fight and breaking it up single handed. David Cameron commemorated him and praised the British Police force for risking their lives everyday to keep our streets safe. I am sorry but has he seen Northern Ireland Police? If a riot breaks out they send down half a dozen riot vans for them to sit there and do nothing and let the gangs get on with it. When the police do get out in their riot gear, again they stand and do nothing. Why? Because if they intervened it would be against Health and Safety or a rioter would sue the officer for touching them. This irritates me to no end. There should be less police on the roads, including traffic wardens, but they should also be given more powers. A police officer should have the power to go up to a rioter grab him and throw him into a riot van to be arrested.

The nation that sues.

If a police officer did that today Health and Safety would go mad and he would most likely get sued by the rioter and possibly fired. This is ridiculous. We sue too much. If a burglar comes into your home to steal your television and trips on your carpet and breaks his neck, he will come out better than you. He may get charged for attempted burglary or breaking and entering. But will get let off for pleading guilty so that he can then go on and sue you because he now has a broken neck and can't go to work any more. Seriously? This is the nation we now live in. It is a disgrace.
*update* 23/07/2011 a man was let off after stabbing and killing a burglar. Four men entered his house, one with a machete, and he tried to defend himself. The judge said due to the 'defensive' and 'frightening' circumstances the man was allowed to walk free. Thank God there is some sense in the world today.
People sue companies for thousands. There is a note up in my work about a 'Ten Thousand Pound Grape' because a women slipped on a grape and sued a shop somewhere. She was off work for a week because of a sprained ankle so lost a weeks wages. Which she ended up getting half of anyway because she was off on the sick. Yet she still has the ability to get all this money for no reason. In this situation the women should have got the money she would have earned if she was working normally and nothing else. If this is common practice people could earn millions by slipping in shopping centres and supermarkets. What a job that would be!

Free money for all.

People who get money for doing nothing annoy me. 'The Dole' annoys me. People get all this money for not having a job and sitting about the house watching, and frequently appearing on, the likes of 'Jeremey Kyle'. Then get even more money for popping out babies left right and centre. This needs to be stopped. People should only get benefits if they are seen to be out actively searching for a job or currently in a job which does not pay. Child Benefits should not be given to families where both parents are unemployed. If they cannot afford to raise the child they should not of had it in the first place. In my opinion that is bad parenting and the child should go into care where it would most likely have a better life anyway. People need to get off their sofa and go out and get a job.

But all the Foreign people have the jobs.

This may be true but a fluent speaker of the English Language with minimal GCSE grades would be a better candidate for any job than an Immigrant who can barely speak English and has no qualifications. Well that is they way it should be anyway. How can a person come into the United Kingdom, and live and work without basic qualifications? How is that someone who can't even speak English can get a job in Customer Relations when people born in this country where turned down because they got a D in English GCSE but can still speak and understand English well enough. This is a disgrace. Restrictions to this country need to be much stronger. People who want to live in this country need to be able to have a C or above in English and Maths GCSE's. After all that is the norm for the rest of us. Equality my backside.

We are all for Equal Rights.

I am sick of Equal Rights. What is wrong with the best person for the job. Companies get slandered all the time because they have no Women in powerful positions or because they do not have enough diversity in the company. So hire/promote people who are not suitable for the job. The reason because there is a White Male CEO is not because the company is racist and sexist, it is because he was the best man for the job. Equality and 'Political Correctness' has gone too far in this country. It really needs to be sorted out. We are turning into America with 'quota' based systems.

Now lets not even get me started on Europe, Foreign Aid, Socialists, NHS, Gays, Religion or anything or you will be reading for a good hour.
This country needs to pushed back in 'right' direction. (and yes that was Conservative pun)

Unionism is nationalism NOT Nationalism

This may come as a big shock to everyone, but I am, in fact, a nationalist.

There are two forms of nationalism in Northern Ireland, Republicanism and Loyalism. Both are different forms of nationalism; while Republicanism is nationalistic towards Ireland, Loyalism is nationalistic towards the United Kingdom.

These two phrases 'Nationalist' and 'Unionist' in my opinion are very out-dated. They no longer mean what they used to and it could be argued that they are used the wrong way round. A Nationalist is actually a Unionist and Unionist is actually a Nationalist. This brings me back to me first stating that I was a nationalist. In today's society 'Nationalists' are fighting for a union once again between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland while 'Unionists' are fighting to stay part of the nation which is United Kingdom. Yes during the early part of the twentieth century these terms where used to a different effect and worked back then, but now I feel as if they are no longer terms which are useful in the twenty first century. People fail to see the difference in Nationalism and nationalism and this is where the confusion lies.

Of course what I just wrote could be debated in a completely different arguing that 'Unionists' are fighting for the continuing union of the United Kingdom, however I feel it is interesting to think that both phrases actually work for both parties.

Benedict Anderson argues that 'the nation' is this 'imagined community'. I feel that I have to disagree with him as if a nation is imagined, then it does not exist and then therefore there is nothing to be proud of. I am British. If my nationality is towards this 'imagined community' then where does that leave me? Can I be part of more than one community? Can I imagine my own community?

I suppose though this is true in Sinn Fein's form of Nationalism. They believe in an imagined 'United Ireland' This imagined community is more of a geographical rather than political doctrine as it not official due to Northern Ireland officially being a part of the United Kingdom. It is also imagined in the sense that we do not know all of those in our community and will never meet them. No matter this community does exist whether imagined or not. This community is due to an official Nation pre 1921.

It is hard to not be biased in this blog but I know I am being it. Personally I dislike the fact that the people of Northern Ireland can have dual-nationality and have both a British and Irish passport. People constantly try to claim that I have this opinion because I am a 'Unionist' however this is not the case. In my mind you cannot have two nationalities. If nationalists believe that the nation is the central principle of political organisation, then you cannot have two nationalities. It would be impossible to carry out the laws of both political establishments and there would always have to be one, which in your mind, carried more political sovereignty. The problem with having an Irish Passport and a British Passport is that you can now be conscripted by either army, but what happens if the two countries went to war, which side would you pick? I just feel that too many complications arise from having dual-nationality.

An opinion that I have, even if it is rather harsh, is if you don't like it then pack up and move. If people in Northern Ireland want to be part of Ireland why don't they just move there? To me it makes more sense than having this tension between the two communities. It all comes down to the fact that, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom whether they like it or not. But do not get me wrong, if a referendum was held and the people voted for a United Ireland, there is nothing I could do about it as the majority of the people would have voted for it. But today, a majority of the people do not want it.

If a United Ireland happened, I would have two options. Take pride in my new Irish Nationality, or pack up and move to the United Kingdom. To be perfectly honest right now I am not sure what I would do. I am not a 'Unionist' because of my family, or my religion, but because of my great pride of being part of the United Kingdom but mainly because that is what is FACT. But if this fact changed and I now did live in Ireland, I may just embrace my Irish-ness and become Irish. However I am possibly swayed more towards moving to the United Kingdom, simply because it means I would be able to vote for Jedward in 2012 Eurovision as it is possible they will be representing them again.