Britain and the pale

rcunning03

Don't know if this is true or not, but I heard that during independence negotiations Britain wanted to have the pale (Dublin anyway).

Even today there seems like there are a percentage of people in Dublin who would of preferred this and it kind of makes sense, cause Dublin was British/English/Norman a lot longer than the rest of the country and people in Dublin seem to be more interested in things like architecture, infrastructure and civilisation in general. Whereas country people seem to want the state to not interfer in their lives and want to be able to build on their own land without having to get the ok from local authorities, leave the pub when they finish drinking instead of a time decided by the state, and generally just have more freedom to make money as best suits them.

I'm not saying either way is better, but if the pale (Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare, Meath) had of stayed in the union, we would of had towns and cities (in the pale) that had a lot more thought put into them to keep the countryside seperate from the urban areas, Instead of bungalows everywhere with driveway access to main roads. Also we would of had better roads, road signage and country people wouldn't have rules imposed on them that people in Dublin want e.g. Ban on smoking in pubs and closing times cause some dublin people seem incapable of having a few drinks without getting violent.

I apologise if I make it sound like only Dublin people want a civilised society and country people are a bunch of unkempt peasants. There are disadvantges to living somewhere that is civilised i.e. a lot of stupid little rules governing even the smallest details and country people just seem to better at making money, be it by Farming in 70' and 80's or construction in 90's and 00's.

Gross generlisation I know, but the question I would like to ask is. Would it of been better for everyone if the pale (or at least Dublin) had of remained in the union ?

mastermind2005

I think it possibly would have been better off for the people economically, but its not something the irish people wanted or want in general

walrusgumble

well some people had fought in civil war because the six counties remained with the union, so i doubt some people would want the pale to stay in union, good and interesting thread thou.

whether or not ireland would be better off econocially without dublin, i doubt it but then again i am not an expert in economics or business. one thing, its just a suggestion, aren't there more td's sitting in the dail than td's from dublin (ok it seems through history its the dubs who have the top jobs eg fitzgerald, haughey, mc dowell etc) but the country td's also hve a voice to improve their communties eg the roads and business, (lynch,reynolds,o'malley,spring etc) you have seen the impact it has brought to tullamore with brian cowen in the postion he is in?,

is decentralisation a step to remove all depts out of dublin to aviod congestion and spread things out?.

i do agree that parts of the country like mayo and dongal have been neglected,

Capt'n Midnight

walrusgumble wrote:

is decentralisation a step to remove all depts out of dublin to aviod congestion and spread things out?.

i do agree that parts of the country like mayo and dongal have been neglected,

No, too few have moved and providing public transport would have a much better effect. Udaras (SP) have done more. Besides most of the congestion in Dublin is due to having residential areas separate from business areas. 4 out of 5 workers from Lucan/Clondalkin commute outside the area - this will increase further with Adamstown. Imagine if Naas and Newbridge had a law where you if you lived in one town you had to work in the other. Now imagine the same situation with Kilcock and Killcullen so they pass each others path. That's Dublin, except Dublin is worse.

If you exclude new hires Decentralisation has only moved about 2,000 people at great expense, a tiny fraction of the number you would think would be glad of the chance to get closer to home, or try a different department.

Erin Go Brath

rcunning03 wrote:

Would it of been better for everyone if the pale (or at least Dublin) had of remained in the union ?

Don't think it would be better for Ireland as a whole if Dublin remained in the UK. The Irish Republic would consist of 25 counties, and have some million + people fewer in it. Cork people would probably like it, because it'd be the REAL CAPITAL then. LOL

It probably would be a disaster to be fair. Dublin (obviously consisting mostly of Catholics) would be beseiged with nationalist rebels trying to get out of the Union, and join the Irish Republic.

From a stability point of view, it would never work because of the allegiances of the majority, thus it would suffer economically too, as who'd want to set up their business in the war zone that it surely would become.

gurramok

Erin Go Brath wrote:

It probably would be a disaster to be fair. Dublin (obviously consisting mostly of Catholics) would be beseiged with nationalist rebels trying to get out of the Union, and join the Irish Republic.

From a stability point of view, it would never work because of the allegiances of the majority, thus it would suffer economically too, as who'd want to set up their business in the war zone that it surely would become.

Not to mention a huge portion of the rebels at the time of the war of independence were from Dublin and battled in Dublin so a pale in the union would just be viewed as an occupation by the city's citizens at least.

vesp

gurramok wrote:

Not to mention a huge portion of the rebels at the time of the war of independence were from Dublin and battled in Dublin so a pale in the union would just be viewed as an occupation by the city's citizens at least.

Do not forget the majority of the people in Dublin jeered at the rebels as they surrendered in 1916, and some were even spat at by the good citizens of Dublin. Far more people had relatives serving in France and with government forces etc that with the rebels.

csk

vesp wrote:

Do not forget the majority of the people in Dublin jeered at the rebels as they surrendered in 1916, and some were even spat at by the good citizens of Dublin. Far more people had relatives serving in France and with government forces etc that with the rebels.

You conviently ignore the fact that this was in 1916, the citizens of Dublin had by the time the OP is talking about in 1921 come to fully back Sinn Féin and the Government of the Republic.

rcunning03 wrote:

Would it of been better for everyone if the pale (or at least Dublin) had of remained in the union ?

Well I think had British demanded that the Pale stay in the Union, there would have been no Treaty and war would have resumed anyway. So on that front it's really a moot point.

I think it's also fair to say that it would not have benefited the Free State in any way shape or form, as it would have rendered the rest of the Free State economically unworkable. Most of the industrial strength on the island was contained in the North-east and was lost with partition, what precious little remained was mainly based in Dublin, so without roughly 80-90% of its industrial prowess the Free State would have collapsed.

The people of Dublin would not be too happy staying in the Union anyway and would have rebelled meaning continued war. I honestly cannot see any benefits to that.

Look at what thirty years of warfare did to the North-East of the country. You cannot tell me that something similar in the Pale coupled with the economic disaster that would have been the rest of the Free State would have been beneficial to any one living on this island.

rcunning03

I think in a perfect ideal world, it could of worked. Assuming Dublin would of developed like the rest of the UK and Ireland developed the way it did, country people could of emigrated to Dublin, instead of having to goto London, New York etc.

However reality is different as proved in the North, probably wouldn't of been the civil rights abuse if it had of been a Dublin Government, but there would always be a extremist element that wouldn't accept Dublin remaining in the UK, as well as the extremisits loyalists who would of never accepted Dublin rule.

We would of been financially better off, but it would of been like living in a warzone and I think the Northside/Southside divide could of gotten violent instead of midly good natured slagging.

csk

rcunning03 wrote:

I think in a perfect ideal world, it could of worked. Assuming Dublin would of developed like the rest of the UK and Ireland developed the way it did, country people could of emigrated to Dublin, instead of having to goto London, New York etc.

That's a rather big assumption is it not? In what way could it have worked?

rcunning03 wrote:

However reality is different as proved in the North, probably wouldn't of been the civil rights abuse if it had of been a Dublin Government, but there would always be a extremist element that wouldn't accept Dublin remaining in the UK, as well as the extremisits loyalists who would of never accepted Dublin rule.

You mean upwards of 70-80% of the population. Surely you cannot be serious, suggesting that the people of Dublin would have in any way accepted staying in the Union?

rcunning03

csk wrote:

That's a rather big assumption is it not? In what way could it have worked?


You mean upwards of 70-80% of the population. Surely you cannot be serious, suggesting that the people of Dublin would have in any way accepted staying in the Union?

It's a very big assumption, that ignores what actually happened up the North. I didn't mean in an Ideal world Dublin would of stayed in the Union, what I meant is if it had of happened and Dublin stayed in the union and we developed like the rest of the UK, Country people would of been able to 'emigrate' to Dublin for jobs, instead of having to goto Liverpool, London etc

I don't think the majority of people would of been happy about it, but most people would of just got on with their lives and I don't believe the average person would of felt strongly enough about it to take up arms, but a large enough percentage of people would of felt strongly enough about it to kill people and make life very unpleasant.

In reality it would of been unworkable for Dublin to stay in the Union

csk

rcunning03 wrote:

It's a very big assumption, that ignores what actually happened up the North. I didn't mean in an Ideal world Dublin would of stayed in the Union, what I meant is if it had of happened and Dublin stayed in the union and we developed like the rest of the UK, Country people would of been able to 'emigrate' to Dublin for jobs, instead of having to goto Liverpool, London etc

I don't think the majority of people would of been happy about it, but most people would of just got on with their lives and I don't believe the average person would of felt strongly enough about it to take up arms, but a large enough percentage of people would of felt strongly enough about it to kill people and make life very unpleasant.

In reality it would of been unworkable for Dublin to stay in the Union

I think you are ignoring that if an ideal world was to be chosen, the vast majority of people in Dublin would probably want a peaceful United Ireland rather than some kind of monstrously partitioned Ireland.

As you say this scenario would have been unworkable, I would say that it is completely ridiculous myself.

As such I'm sorry but I no idea what your trying to say, what exactly is your point?

rcunning03

csk wrote:

I think you are ignoring that if an ideal world was to be chosen, the vast majority of people in Dublin would probably want a peaceful United Ireland rather than some kind of monstrously partitioned Ireland.

As you say this scenario would have been unworkable, I would say that it is completely ridiculous myself.

As such I'm sorry but I no idea what your trying to say, what exactly is your point?

Wasn't trying to make a point, was just asking a question that as Dublin people and country people seem to have different values about what a country should be (e.g. country people want to build everywhere, not that interested in hiring architects or quality building standards and don't want the Government telling them what to do and how how to live their life, whereas Dublin people don't want to see horrible little bungalows spoling the countryside, they want nice, well designed, well built property and regulation that restricts people freedoms such as smoking in pubs etc). Yes that is a generalisation but overall it seems to be true.

The question was would the country have been better off if we had of gone our seperate ways. You obviously disagree. Personally it's irrelevant to me wheter we're ruled by Dublin, London or Brussels, I'd just like to live somewhere where they know how to build motorways properly, and make sure all the proper infrastructure is in place before they grant planning permission, basically somewhere with a decent quality (not standard) of life. The government is not the country, I'll always be Irish from the island of Ireland regardless where the politicians sit.

csk

rcunning03 wrote:

Wasn't trying to make a point, was just asking a question that as Dublin people and country people seem to have different values about what a country should be (e.g. country people want to build everywhere, not that interested in hiring architects or quality building standards and don't want the Government telling them what to do and how how to live their life, whereas Dublin people don't want to see horrible little bungalows spoling the countryside, they want nice, well designed, well built property and regulation that restricts people freedoms such as smoking in pubs etc). Yes that is a generalisation but overall it seems to be true.

The question was would the country have been better off if we had of gone our seperate ways. You obviously disagree. Personally it's irrelevant to me wheter we're ruled by Dublin, London or Brussels, I'd just like to live somewhere where they know how to build motorways properly, and make sure all the proper infrastructure is in place before they grant planning permission, basically somewhere with a decent quality (not standard) of life. The government is not the country, I'll always be Irish from the island of Ireland regardless where the politicians sit.

Well that's fair enough. I wouldn't agree with those generalisations at all. I mean the same politicians would be in charge, Ahern MacDowell are from Dublin, just some others would be changed, maybe Mary Lou Mac Donald would be in the Government of an independant Dublin. Now there is a reason if ever there was one to have stayed with the rest of Ireland!

Maybe you should have put this in politics or something as I don't see what it has to do with History and Heritage.

fly_agaric

rcunning03 wrote:

Gross generlisation I know

Yep. It's too gross to be useful in any way. There doesn't seem to be any strong evidence for it either.

What about Dublin would indicate "different values about what a country should be" as you put it, such that Dublin needs a different government? [you seem to mean a difference between it and the rest of the country when it comes to having a bit of contempt for authority/rules and regulations and a tendency to gombeenism/eye out for a quick euro]

Would it be the way no one litters, jaywalks, runs red lights and everyone forms themelves into nice and orderly queues?

The general reverence and respect for the street furniture, public property, public spaces etc of Dublin?

Or could it be Dublin's well oiled public transport system which you could set a clock by?

Maybe it;'s the fact that Dublin's planning, development, and local government have always been efficient - with the needs of the people always to the forefront!


With that out of the way you could have asked if it would be better for Ireland/x had x stayed in the Union (where x is any city/region in the south of Ireland.

A further partitioning would not seem to be very good for Ireland, would it (loss of population, land, infrastructure)?

So your question just boils down to the old dead horse one about whether Ireland should have left the UK or not.