If Ireland only got independence now, what would it be like?

Seanchai

Shryke wrote: »

I imagine we would have better infrastructure and planning. The state of Galway on the planning side of things is awful. I can't imagine that a bloated mess like eircom was/is could get away with existing as it did without any investment in infrastructure for example.
More multiculturalism I suppose which would have been nice.

1. In 1976 Britain was bankrupt and bailed out by the IMF. Most of Britain's admirers here aren't aware of this. Fortunately for Britain, more oil was discovered in Argyll off Scotland around the same time. This has allowed Britain to finance infrastructure that it otherwise may not have been able to, particularly given that it was bankrupt in the 1970s, just as it was in 1946 when the United States gave it billions via the Marshall Plan. It wasted this, also, and ended up bankrupt again. Just look at how the British industrial and manufacturing base has shrunk since the early 1970s. Its once formidable car industry is all but gone. Britain, particularly London, is a massive financial services centre now. Most people now appreciate how insecure that is but Britain has far less manufacturing and industrial infrastructure compared to, say, Germany


2. Eircom? While Eircom is indeed dire and has been exploited by loyal British knights like Sir Anthony O'Reilly, privatising British Rail (and many other public bodies) from the 1980s on didn't exactly work wonders for that infrastructure, did it? It has arguably been a disaster. The average English person has a far less romantic view of the success of their infrastructure.

3. Multiculturalism, by most British yardsticks, isn't exactly a success in Britain. Witness the massive riots last summer. It's a source of regret mostly. As the British police said to Lenihan a few years back when he asked about the Sikh headgear for gardaí: "If we could turn back time...we wouldn't allow it.". Britain, for most Brits, has moved far too much to the extent that second and third-generation families frequently identify with their ancestral homeland rather than Britain.

Seanchai

I'm not quite sure why so many people here are keen to develop a false understanding of the level of planning, infrastructure, thought, organisation, wealth or success in Britain. It could only be to satisfy some desire to put Ireland down.

If you want to look down on Ireland, you'd be better off choosing Germany (infrastructure) or Finland (education) or France (health) than Britain. This entire "Britain is still the centre of the world" malarkey in 2012 is embarrassingly ignorant and parochial.

Seanchai

dttq wrote: »

As original as the types who wear Celtic jerseys and get their news from the Irish Sun, yet call others west brits etc.

dttq wrote: »

As original as the types who wear Celtic jerseys and get their news from the Irish Sun, yet call others unIrish etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

golden lane

Seanchai wrote: »

1. In 1976 Britain was bankrupt and bailed out by the IMF. Most of Britain's admirers here aren't aware of this. Fortunately for Britain, more oil was discovered in Argyll off Scotland around the same time. This has allowed Britain to finance infrastructure that it otherwise may not have been able to, particularly given that it was bankrupt in the 1970s, just as it was in 1946 when the United States gave it billions via the Marshall Plan. It wasted this, also, and ended up bankrupt again. Just look at how the British industrial and manufacturing base has shrunk since the early 1970s. Its once formidable car industry is all but gone. Britain, particularly London, is a massive financial services centre now. Most people now appreciate how insecure that is but Britain has far less manufacturing and industrial infrastructure compared to, say, Germany


2. Eircom? While Eircom is indeed dire and has been exploited by loyal British knights like Sir Anthony O'Reilly, privatising British Rail (and many other public bodies) from the 1980s on didn't exactly work wonders for that infrastructure, did it? It has arguably been a disaster. The average English person has a far less romantic view of the success of their infrastructure.

3. Multiculturalism, by most British yardsticks, isn't exactly a success in Britain. Witness the massive riots last summer. It's a source of regret mostly. As the British police said to Lenihan a few years back when he asked about the Sikh headgear for gardaí: "If we could turn back time...we wouldn't allow it.". Britain, for most Brits, has moved far too much to the extent that second and third-generation families frequently identify with their ancestral homeland rather than Britain.

i don't recognise the uk that you describe......

i have been here for fifty years.....we are better of now than we have ever been......just owe a bit of money, like everywhere else.....

not bad for a country that stood up to hitler.....when all others on the continent surrendered....

and britain spent all it's money fighting to help them......

BlueSmoker

Only glanced through this thread, and it just goes to show, what whinge buckets we have become, up until the 1980's we fought for everything we had. My Father as a untrained engineer, studied how the locals heating systems worked, so that he could help his neighbours, in fixing their heating systems, (why cause he was good at it) and occasionally it put food on the table.

Now everyone seems to be griping about how much everyone else is getting besides themselves. Public against Private, workers against non workers, Irish against non Irish, old against young, vunerable against tax payer, everyone else is to blame but ourselves (we own some responisbility to what has happened in our country) and mainly because we all took our eye off the ball, because we were told we were rich in the 1990's and 2000's, not one of us question why we became rich so quick or why most weren't even seeing it. We thought we had arrived in Tir na Óg, well Dermid has now fallen from his horse and we need to deal with it here and now.

So if we just got Independence, today, a week or even 5 years ago, we would have acted like a spolit child and throwen our toys out of the pram, but at least our grandparents and parents wouldn't be cringing at the way we are acting, cause that would have being the way they brought us up.

But we got our Independence in 1921, and our grandparents and parents fought tooth and nail for that, and through very other hard ship since then, and if I was them I would give Ireland a huge slap to cop on, instead of the last 5 years of sling mud in the playground at each other, and start looking at how to help each other, instead of blaming everyone else, and believe me there are people not that far away from you that need a lot of help.

Cú Giobach

After the the brutal suppression of the 1926 uprising there is a deep hatred within Ireland that spreads to Scottish and Welsh nationalists, that combined with the great depression leads to turmoil in Britain leaving her without the resources to continue the fight against the Germans in 1941 leading to a peace treaty between GB and the Reich.
Hence no jump off point for the D Day landings resulting in the Soviets sweeping across the whole of Europe.
Britain never having the economic recovery of the 50's leaves her an impoverished state.
Europe is then devastated by the wars of the 1980's and 90's as the various peoples try to get rid of the Russians.
The impoverished UK then breaks up but is not destroyed like the European mainland.
The Irish Democratic Republic, The Kingdom of Scotland, Cymraeg Gweriniaeth Sosialaidd Sofietaidd and The Republic of England (created after a Welsh nationalist bombs a royal wedding and the ensuing turmoils) all live happily ever after and eventually become the richest nations in the devestated Europe.
The End.

If it seems implausible just remember the actions of a Serb nationalist started a chain of events in 1914 that lead to the Europe we have today

later12

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And no they weren't criminalising Irishness, but one of the most basic human rights is the right to self determination, and that one had been barbarically trodden on for quite a while.

Self determination is something of an arbitrary term. Where does it stop; at the level of the island, the county, or the individual? There's no single answer, yet they cannot all be legitimate, for Irish nationalists, Cork men, and libertarians might well give you different answers.

In fact, many would argue that self determination was already provided for in early 20th century, pre-independence Ireland under parliamentary and local government, which was as democratic as elsewhere in the UK, and in no way denied or outlawed Irish culture or customs.

I ought to add at this point that I am by no means a Unionist, nor an admirer of the United Kingdom now or in its history. I just don't consider it established that self determination in an Irish context justified active warfare.

charlemont wrote: »

Did you ever hear of the famine ? Act of Union perhaps !! Kilmainham maybe ?

Way off topic here, but no I don't consider the Act of Union nor Kilmainham to have been as cruel as Britain's handling of Irish independence, the latter being a mishandling that led to civil war and decades of economic and social ruination.

Obviously, the famine and its aftermath were worse, & the UK behaved irresponsibly in relation to Ireland at that time. But I would be very sceptical about categorizing the Irish Famine as a direct grant of the British Government in the way that Independence was. So it doesn't belong in the same category.

Seanchai wrote: »

Why you assume that the Scot fighting for freedom is the "extremist" while the British unionist and his state's military opposing it is not is indicative of your prejudices alone.

Eh, because the "freedom fighter" does not have his civil rights impeded, lives in what would be regarded internationally as a liberated society, and enjoys full access to legitimate parliamentary, plebiscitary and associated democratic alternatives; to be decided in accordance with the wishes of his Scottish compatriots.

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

Self determination is something of an arbitrary term. Where does it stop; at the level of the island, the county, or the individual? There's no single answer, yet they cannot all be legitimate, for Irish nationalists, Cork men, and libertarians might well give you different answers.

Look at a political map of the world the vast majority of those countries were ultimately formed by war, ours is no different.
People decide for themselves how to group themselves as they see fit, it is not for others to decide, and they can group according to their own criteria.

An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness

If an ethnic group want to control their own destiny and are willing to accept the consequences what gives others the right to say otherwise.

later12 wrote: »

In fact, many would argue that self determination was already provided for in early 20th century, pre-independence Ireland under parliamentary and local government, which was as democratic as elsewhere in the UK, and in no way denied or outlawed Irish culture or customs.

Under the ultimate control of foreigners. Something the people did not want.

later12

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Look at a political map of the world the vast majority of those countries were ultimately formed by war, ours is no different.
People decide for themselves how to group themselves as they see fit, it is not for others to decide, and they can group according to their own criteria.

No that still doesn't answer my question.

If Irish nationalists (unionists one might say...), Corkmen, and libertarians all have different opinions on self determination, who gets to decide where the appropriate boundaries lie?

I hope you believe that we've come too far to pick up arms in the aspiration of resolving such an irrelevant, slightly absurd question; but perhaps you will enlighten us as to how this ought be resolved, in your opinion.

If an ethnic group want to control their own destiny and are willing to accept the consequences what gives others the right to say otherwise.

Oh, I don't know; democratic consultation; international law?

IrishAm

later12 wrote: »

If Irish nationalists (unionists one might say...), Corkmen, and libertarians all have different opinions on self determination, who gets to decide where the appropriate boundaries lie?

The Irish people. And the election results of 1918 gave Sinn Fein/Republicans a mandate.

IrishAm

later12 wrote: »

Self determination is something of an arbitrary term. Where does it stop; at the level of the island, the county, or the individual? There's no single answer, yet they cannot all be legitimate, for Irish nationalists, Cork men, and libertarians might well give you different answers.

Seriously, what in the name of Jaysus am I reading here? Self determination is not an arbitrary term and it starts and ends with the Irish people deciding on their own affairs, irregardless of outside interference.

The clue is in the name.

later12

IrishAm wrote: »

Later12 wrote:

If Irish nationalists (unionists one might say...), Corkmen, and libertarians all have different opinions on self determination, who gets to decide where the appropriate boundaries lie?

The Irish people.

seriously,did you even read the question?

The question related to the nature of self determination; the nature of the 'self' in that term; it wasn't a specific historical reference.

IrishAm

later12 wrote: »

The question related to the nature of self determination; the nature of the 'self' in that term; it wasn't a specific historical reference.

I view Ireland as a 32 county island. I believe in democracy, ergo, I believe that each and every citizen on this island of Ireland, should have a vote.

The vote? Simple. Should Ireland become a 32 country Republic or should the six counties remain part of the UK.

If the Irish people vote for the six to remain part of the UK, I will begrudgingly get on with it and whole heartedly accept their decision.

Give us the chance to democratically voice our opinions.

later12

IrishAm wrote: »

I view Ireland as a 32 county island. I believe in democracy, ergo, I believe that each and every citizen on this island of Ireland, should have a vote.

The vote? Simple. Should Ireland become a 32 country Republic or should the six counties remain part of the UK.

If the Irish people vote for the six to remain part of the UK, I will begrudgingly get on with it and whole heartedly accept their decision.

Give us the chance to democratically voice our opinions.

....

I view the United Kingdom as an 80 county archipelago. I believe in democracy, ergo, I believe that each and every citizen on this archipelago of the United Kingfom, should have a vote.

The vote? Simple. Should the United Kingdom become a 80 county union or should the thirty two counties remain part of the UK.

If the UK people vote for the 32 to remain part of the UK, I will begrudgingly get on with it and whole heartedly accept their decision.

Give us the chance to democratically voice our opinions.

Furthermore, you didn't answer. Did you read the original question?

IrishAm

Utter bollix, later12 and you know it.

Ireland is more than some insignificant island.

later12

You're still not answering the question.

For the umpth time; who gets to decide sovereignty? The island, the county, or the individual?

This is an age old question; I'm not seriously expecting a definitive answer; I'm just (reasonably, I would say) anticipating an acceptance that there are long standing, centuries old, legitimate philosophical and political differences in resolving the nature of self determination.

It's not something that can be easily answered with either a ballot paper nor a barrel of armalite.

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

No that still doesn't answer my question.

If Irish nationalists (unionists one might say...), Corkmen, and libertarians all have different opinions on self determination, who gets to decide where the appropriate boundaries lie?

We decided one boundary the British decided another, due to this impasse violence ensued, what makes the British boundary more legitimate? One that don't forget was formed and maintained by violence in the first place.
We humans divide ourselves up into groups as do all social animals, sometimes one group wants to dominate another, the result if the domination does not stop and one does not like being dominated, is violence.

I hope you believe that we've come too far to pick up arms in the aspiration of resolving such an irrelevant, slightly absurd question; but perhaps you will enlighten us as to how this ought be resolved, in your opinion.

Common sense, an entire people consisting of millions desire to change a boundary formed and maintained by violence are the baddies according to you because they resorted to violence to change it after years and years of unsuccessful peaceful negotiation.
Think about it, the answer should be obvious.

Oh, I don't know; democratic consultation; international law?

Democratic consultation??
Do you think the results of the 1918 election were democratic??
Would ignoring the desire of the people who by voting for Sinn Féin voted for independence in 1918 be considered in line with international law today??

What do you do when a power ignores years and years of attempts at resolving a situation, give up? People do not do that today, they did not do it 100 years ago nor will they do it in 100 years time.
Like all animals on this planet we fight when our freedom is curtailed.

IrishAm

later12 wrote: »

You're still not answering the question.

For the umpth time; who gets to decide sovereignty? The island, the county, or the individual?

The. People. Of. Ireland.

later12 wrote: »

It's not something that can be easily answered with either a ballot paper nor a barrel of armalite.

I would say the support of the armalite was due to nationalist peoples sheer desperation and exasperation due to the situation they found themselves in. They tried every available avenue open to them, beforehand. It was a last resort. The question you need to ask yourself is why did the people of West Belfast(as an example) offer the British soldiers tea and biscuits when they first arrived and later on side with the P.I.R.A


As an aside, before any goon brings it up. I support the GFA and I hope the gun is never re-introduced into Irish politics.

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

You're still not answering the question.

For the umpth time; who gets to decide sovereignty? The island, the county, or the individual?

This is an age old question; I'm not seriously expecting a definitive answer;

But you are demanding one. Sad carry on :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight you are saying since every man, woman and child cannot be given independence this somehow makes the combined desire of millions redundant and questionable.
The question is unanswerable philosophically, but in the real world where real people are involved it HAS to be answered. You cannot throw your hands in the air and say "sorry but since every human can't have their own little state, we are deciding now who is part of this one so end of and bugger off".

Riddle101

later12 wrote: »

Ah, well if the question is "what if the pressure for independence was maintained post 1918, but no independence was forthcoming", then that's probably a legitimate observation.

But generally, if the 1918 movement had not arisen until 2012, I think it's reasonable to argue that we would be no less Irish than the Scots are Scottish, and no more persecuted for our "identity" than the Scots or the Welsh are.

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century, but indeed of whether or not Ireland became independent too early.

Indeed, it is my personal belief that the cruellest act that the United Kindgdom exacted upon the island of Ireland in the past 250 years was to grant independence when Ireland's institutions were poorly equipped to handle it. It was the last cruel blow, and locked Ireland into perhaps sixty years of social and economic stagnation.

It was to be a mistake that the United Kingdom didn't learn from, and was repeated widely across Africa and the colonies with far deeper, even more disastrous consequences.

At the end of the day, i don't think Britain really cared about other countries problems to worry about something like Ireland's "poorly equipped institution" or social and economic stagnation, at least not at that time. They were happy to let other countries in their empire rot once they left, that includes Ireland. .

Still though I think it was better for them to grant us independence at the time, then to keep under their control, any later and we probably be wouldn't have gotten independence.

Cú Giobach

golden lane wrote: »

not bad for a country that stood up to hitler.....when all others on the continent surrendered....

and britain spent all it's money fighting to help them......

Britain did not spend all its money to help Europe.
For a start it had no money, hence the attitude of appeasement that pervaded the entire country as the Rhineland was retaken and Czechoslovakia invaded.
Britain fought to maintain her Empire and so her people wouldn't have to fight for the right to govern themselves a generation later. She fought for the same reasons the Irish lads in 1921 did, the British people did not want to be ruled by a foreign power.

I think the words "beaten senseless" are a better description than "surrender", and what did the BEF do, yes you got it they ran away, as the French held the line at great cost to themselves to allow them to escape, many people with their pathetic "cheese eating surrender monkeys" comments forget this sacrifice.

mikemac1

golden lane wrote: »

not bad for a country that stood up to hitler.....when all others on the continent surrendered....

and britain spent all it's money fighting to help them......

Meanwhile over 2 million died in the Bengal famine, so much for the glorious Empire

Can be viewed as similar to the Irish famine

There was food and resources but there were useless and indifferent administrators and the whole thing should never have happened

Churchill was aware but hey, they were only coolies to him

Fuinseog

Seanchai wrote: »

Names? (Brian Hayes and John Bruton excepted)

"the queen", as if you're talking about Ireland's head of state rather than about a foreign monarch, the British queen.

lizzie is usually referred to as the queen in most European media. there are not that many queens about, certainly not as notable as herself.
usually the population of south county Dublin consider themselves closer to Britain than to Ballina.

Fuinseog

British politicians involved in corruption are forced to resign. in Ireland this is not even considered. with direct rule from Britain our little island would be far less corrupt.

imagine a system where you do not have to pay for school books or a quick visit to the GP. we are not poorer than GB . we just do not look after our citizens as well.

Ms.M

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat, would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

This comment has already received five thanks. I know most would dismiss the loathing of sex and guilt complex part, at least to the extent that it's being attributed solely to rural communities and "gaelic" cultural values. But is this opinion widely held?
GAA is bog ball, trad is diddley-eye music, the Irish language is a useless backward language, "gaelic" culture isn't a culture at all; just the whimsical anti-intellectual habits of the "culchie brigade"... etc.
I'm not saying Irish people ought to be avid GAA supporters, play the fiddle and speak Gaeilge. People have their own tastes. I'm not talking about people who don't want their tax-money supporting cultural values that they perhaps don't share either. But what about people who dismiss all things "gaelic" on the grounds that they're backward or for thickos? Why this level of contempt for "gaelic" culture? Is it that it's commonly called "Irish" culture and Irish people who haven't grown up with this version of "Irish" culture feel belittled and the hatred comes out of some insecurity about their patriotism? Or it it just that because it's referred to as "Irish" culture, Irish people that would be inclined towards bigotry in general or disrespect for cultures not their own feel they've a carte blanche to be as disdainful as they want?
The five-times thanked poster doesn't even consider GAA to be a "sport" or Irish to be a "language." They're very extreme beliefs and seeming as the poster is very common on the GAA thread, THANK FCUK HE WAS PROBABLY JOKING! but still, it got FIVE thanks; are these opinions widely held and why?

Cú Giobach

Ms.M wrote: »

[............] They're very extreme beliefs in my opinion but are they widely held and why?

A very good and very simple question, that people who hold such feeling don't seem to ask themselves. Sometimes the very people who would make such comments are the first to shot "bigotry" or "racism" to someone espousing a similar sentiment about other peoples.

Sentiments such as these I feel all come from the same place ignorance. You rarely get such comments from some of the more intellectually minded posters who are able to have an adult discussion on a wide variety of topics. Sadly an awareness of how wonderful the rich variety of music, languages, sports etc are on this planet, and how the loss of any one of them leaves us all poorer as a result seems to be lacking.

later12

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Later12 wrote:

If Irish nationalists (unionists one might say...), Corkmen, and libertarians all have different opinions on self determination, who gets to decide where the appropriate boundaries lie?

We decided one boundary the British decided another, due to this impasse violence ensued, what makes the British boundary more legitimate?

You're answering a question that nobody asked. I asked a specific question about the nature of self determination; who gets to decide on the unit of that statehood. An Irish nationalist might say 'Ireland', a Corkman might say 'Cork', a Ballincollig man might say 'Ballincollig' and a Ballincollig anarcho-libertarian might support the dismantling of most governing structures which detract from his own self sovereignty.

Just because something is an island, or just because a boundary was drawn on some ancient map does not mean that a region has some natural, God given right to independent nationhood. Nationalism is an entirely arbitrary human construct; its historical legitimacy needs to be examined on a case by case basis.

Democratic consultation??
Do you think the results of the 1918 election were democratic??

Why are you relating what I said to 1918?

I explicitly said that I was not comparing Scotland in 2012 to Ireland in 1918; my point about democratic consultation was based on a broader question about nationalism and the hypothetical Salmond shooting a policeman scenario in order to demonstrate that the nationalists would be the extremists in that case.

Like all animals on this planet we fight when our freedom is curtailed.

How on Earth was the average man's "freedom" curtailed in Ireland any differently to the situation elsewhere in the British isles in the early 20th century? You talk about "freedom" as though Ireland was in chains; in reality Irish people lived in one of the most liberated societies in the world at that time, had direct access to local and national government, freedom to practice their culture and customs, and lived with (indeed, joined) their own police forces and the judiciary.

I don't necessarily mind people wanting to construct arbitrary boundaries of self determination; each to their own. It's when they force these boundaries on others (this applies both to the United Kingdom and to the Irish militants at various times) that some of us find troublesome; especially when there seems to be scant logical basis for the statehood they are seeking.

Wacker The Attacker

Seanchai wrote: »

:rolleyes: The ignorance. Jesus wept.

Yeah. Because nobody was ever forced to learn Irish ever were they?

Ms.M

Cú Giobach wrote: »

A very good and very simple question, that people who hold such feeling don't seem to ask themselves. Sometimes the very people who would make such comments are the first to shot "bigotry" or "racism" to someone espousing a similar sentiment about other peoples.

Sentiments such as these I feel all come from the same place ignorance. You rarely get such comments from some of the more intellectually minded posters who are able to have an adult discussion on a wide variety of topics. Sadly an awareness of how wonderful the rich variety of music, languages, sports etc are on this planet, and how the loss of any one of them leaves us all poorer as a result seems to be lacking.

Well it certainly appears to be ignorance. But you do occasionally get such comments from people who seem to consider themselves intellectual and as you say yourself, rightly condemn racism. It's annoying being shoved in a bracket which is made out to be backward or insular when, if anything, bearing a rabid hatred of all things "gaelic" surely makes you more susceptible to disliking cultures that aren't your own; since that's exactly what you're doing in this instance. And from a language point of view, based on my own experience I would guess that people who speak Irish are slightly more likely to speak another European language than people who don't.
It would be interesting to hear from those who do despise "gaelic" culture in regards to my previous post. Do either of my reasons hit the nail on the head? Or is there another reason that I'm ignorant of?
I'm not waiting to attack anyone, and I respect that people have cultural values that are perfectly "Irish" but have nowt to do with "gaelic" culture, but why, for some people, is this respect not reciprocated?
Why do you hate or belittle it?

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

You're answering a question that nobody asked. I asked a specific question about the nature of self determination; who gets to decide on the unit of that statehood.

The people who group themselves according to their own criteria.

An Irish nationalist might say 'Ireland', a Corkman might say 'Cork', a Ballincollig man might say 'Ballincollig' and a Ballincollig anarcho-libertarian might support the dismantling of most governing structures which detract from his own self sovereignty.
Just because something is an island, or just because a boundary was drawn on some ancient map does not mean that a region has some natural, God given right to independent nationhood. Nationalism is an entirely arbitrary human construct; its historical legitimacy needs to be examined on a case by case basis.

Most people are well aware of whether they can make a viable state or not.
A Saor Ballincollig movement wouldn't get off the ground because the people would be well aware it would not be viable.
Because there is no rule book each case does indeed have to be taken on an individual basis, and in the case of Ireland with its population who feel connected by a shared culture, the history of British misrule and with Ireland having the numbers to make a viable state the case here I feel was very much in favour of breaking the tie with London. Which thankfully is exactly what happened, logic prevailed.

Who is talking about geography, this is about people grouping themselves according to a real shared culture and bonds, it is one of our traits as a social species, nobody can say "sorry you are not a group" if people decide to group themselves as they see fit, be that the melting pot of people who call themselves American or the mono cultural Japanese.

Why are you relating what I said to 1918?
I explicitly said that I was not comparing Scotland in 2012 to Ireland in 1918; my point about democratic consultation was based on a broader question about nationalism and the hypothetical Salmond shooting a policeman scenario in order to demonstrate that the nationalists would be the extremists in that case.

If the action was against an enforcer of a hypothetical extremist police state the action would hardly be extremist more a natural reaction.

How on Earth was the average man's "freedom" curtailed in Ireland any differently to the situation elsewhere in the British isles in the early 20th century? You talk about "freedom" as though Ireland was in chains; in reality Irish people lived in one of the most liberated societies in the world at that time, had direct access to local and national government, freedom to practice their culture and customs, and lived with (indeed, joined) their own police forces and the judiciary.

Under the ultimate control of foreigners who ruled here putting the economic needs of those in Britain before the needs of those here, and denying those here the ability to change that, is denying freedom.

I don't necessarily mind people wanting to construct arbitrary boundaries of self determination; each to their own. It's when they force these boundaries on others (this applies both to the United Kingdom and to the Irish militants at various times) that some of us find troublesome; especially when there seems to be scant logical basis for the statehood they are seeking.

Is not being a second class citizen in a country scant logical basis?
Is the history of British misrule here scant logical basis?
Is the fact the memory of the famine was very much alive in 1920 scant logical basis?
One cannot tell the future, and can only base expectations of that from the realities of the past, to have continued with the status quo in 1920 would have been illogical from an Irish standpoint.

Strangely you don't seem to find the artificial construct of the UK of GB and Ireland questionable but you do the real grouping based on the shared ethnicity of the Irish people.

JupiterKid

Fuinseog wrote: »

there are still people willing to fight for Irish freedom. Take Marian Price for example. her heroic shooting of an evil Brit collecting a pizza in 2009 won our hearts and minds.

Are you really f*cking serious with that comment? You applaud an act of wanton murderous terrorism by the Real IRA dissidents?

You my friend are very deluded.

Jester252

OP you did it now. A thread where all of AH dead horses can be flogged

robp

Fuinseog wrote: »

British politicians involved in corruption are forced to resign. in Ireland this is not even considered. with direct rule from Britain our little island would be far less corrupt.

imagine a system where you do not have to pay for school books or a quick visit to the GP. we are not poorer than GB . we just do not look after our citizens as well.

In my eyes there is a more developed culture of resigning following revelations in the UK. That is commendable. Yet its completely unfounded to say UK influence would greatly reduce Irish corruption because if you look at the international measures ie the corruption perception index you will see Ireland falls only two places behind the UK. Ireland is not perceived as corrupt internationally.

Sure the NHS is better than our own two tier health system but overall its hard to call the long effects. At best I could suggest is that the UK would have a moderating influence (but possible a radicalising effect with continued insurrection). Maybe we would be like Wales, more stable but at times poorer and certainly more obscure.

People rarely mention our image aboard but without independence would we have the entourage of politicians kicking up a media barrage around the world every 17th of March.

Cú Giobach

I just thought of one thing our experience of travelling would be different, on my very first visit to France the following conversation ensued.

Me: Excusez-moi monsieur, parlez-vous Anglais?
Monsieur: Anglais? Non, pardonnez moi. Something in French.
Me: Haltingly Oh, aahh Où est le ummm bureau de post s'il vous plaît?
Monsieur: Pointed directions followed by Anglais? la Grande-Bretagne?
Me: Anglais? Non Irlande.
Monsieur: Irlande? Ahhh, Monsieur I do speak a little English Followed by lovely conversation.

Seanchai

later12 wrote: »

...the situation elsewhere in the British isles in the early 20th century?

There's something about the use of this term that sums up the user's politics more than thousands of posts.

Pointless arguing with somebody who uses it.

kowloon

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I just thought of one thing our experience of travelling would be different, on my very first visit to France the following conversation ensued.

Me: Excusez-moi monsieur, parlez-vous Anglais?
Monsieur: Anglais? Non, pardonnez moi. Something in French.
Me: Haltingly Oh, aahh Où est le ummm bureau de post s'il vous plaît?
Monsieur: Pointed directions followed by Anglais? la Grande-Bretagne?
Me: Anglais? Non Irlande.
Monsieur: Irlande? Ahhh, Monsieur I do speak a little English Followed by lovely conversation.

I've been in a similar exchange. The folks travel a bit and have run into it too. People can get a little warmer when they find out you're not English.
And it is English: The Scots and the Welsh get away with it if they refer to themselves as such and not as British.

People know how to keep a grudge against them long after the dawn of the empire.

Toby Take a Bow

Seanchai wrote: »

There's something about the use of this term that sums up the user's politics more than thousands of posts.

Pointless arguing with somebody who uses it.

Surely it depends on whether they're using the term as a political point or whether it's something they use because that's the generally accepted geographical term for the islands, one that's also been used in Irish text books as far as I remember.

When referring to the islands of Ireland and Britain, what collective term do you use?

Seanchai

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Yeah. Because nobody was ever forced to learn Irish ever were they?

:rolleyes: Why is it that every scapegoat-seeking loser going forgets that they were equally "forced" to learn every other subject they did in school....

later12

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Most people are well aware of whether they can make a viable state or not.
A Saor Ballincollig movement wouldn't get off the ground because the people would be well aware it would not be viable.

Of course it could be. Ballincollig has almost twice the population of Tuvalu, and is almost as big as Palau. Small economies with no natural resources find lots of clever, inventive ways of financing themselves; just look at Ireland - a country whose economic viability as an independent state has itself been called into serious question throughout the 20th century, and today.

Under the ultimate control of foreigners who ruled here putting the economic needs of those in Britain before the needs of those here, and denying those here the ability to change that, is denying freedom.

That's a very dubious argument. Three points stick out at once.

(i) a similar claim could be made against the Dublin government by disadvantaged counties of Ireland. A similar claim could be made by the disadvantaged town councils against the county councils. A similar claim could be made by the disadvantaged residents against their respective town councils, all of whom in turn believe that their economic needs are being ignored.
(ii) in fact, the London government went further by writing Home Rule into law. And not having sat at Westminster, the Sinn Fein MPs failed to even attempt to secure independence peacefully. The reason it had not been secured peacefully before was because the IPP had historically had little interest in outright independence, just like an awful lot of Irish people.
(iii) Would that Northern nationalists respected the sentiments you expressed! No doubt you are a defender of the rights of Ulster's Union with the UK, then, are you?

Is not being a second class citizen in a country scant logical basis?

Was James Joyce a second class citizen, or his wealthy industrialist ancestors? Samuel Beckett? Bernard Shaw? Was Kevin Barry a second class citizen when he walked out of Belvedere College and into the UCD medical school on Merrion Square? Was Padraig Pearse a second class citizen, when after being called to the bar he opened his famous school? Were Michael Moloney and Peter O Brien and Michael Morris, all Catholic Irishmen, second class citizens when they each respectively sat as Lord Chief Justice if their own country? No, I don't think the term second class citizen applies to Irishmen who enjoyed the same rights as others in the UK at that time, who were free to engage in their culture, practice their religion, access education, and go about their normal lives living in peace with their families and friends.

Is the fact the memory of the famine was very much alive in 1920 scant logical basis?

In that case, one might say it was very much alive in the mid 1920s when the last people to die from starvataion died in Co. Cork, Saor Stat Eire.

Strangely you don't seem to find the artificial construct of the UK of GB and Ireland questionable but you do the real grouping based on the shared ethnicity of the Irish people.

I do; I already said I'm opposed to people pushing their nationalism on society using violence.

200,000 years of modern human evolution and I'm fairly sure we ought to have got to the stage where we start deciding these things using rulers, markers and logical arguments.

From my point of view, I feel that union with the UK made economic sense in the world of early 20th century Ireland and later within Europe, where our interests still converge today. However I can also see reasons for preserving self governance. There were some very logical arguments in favour of that which, as we know, Sinn Fein never actually bothered to propose in the established democratic institutions of the day.

kowloon

Seanchai wrote: »

There's something about the use of this term that sums up the user's politics more than thousands of posts.

Pointless arguing with somebody who uses it.

I've heard it called Atlantic Isles and East Atlantic Archipelago (Spelling?).

Don't care too much but it'd be nice if everyone could come to an agreement so I know what to use.

We do have the Irish Sea though.

Cú Giobach

kowloon wrote: »

I've been in a similar exchange. The folks travel a bit and have run into it too. People can get a little warmer when they find out you're not English.
And it is English: The Scots and the Welsh get away with it if they refer to themselves as such and not as British.

People know how to keep a grudge against them long after the dawn of the empire.

Indeed. I learned very quick not to start a conversation with the old Parlez-vous Anglais?.
And though French isn't a language I speak, I always start with, Je suis désolé, mon français n'est pas bon. Pouvez/avez-vous.......
The attempt is very much appreciated and opens many doors.
Thankfully having Irish has given me an ability to pick up languages quickly and an understanding that saying the English word over and over while getting louder each time doesn't work very well.
As I think about it Parlez-vous Allemand doesn't sit too well either, which I do speak.

later12

Eh Seanchai I referred to the British Isles in the early 20th century because back then there was no ambiguity about the matter, Ireland was part of the British Isles and the United Kingdom. Link to post:

later12 wrote: »

the situation elsewhere in the British isles in the early 20th century?

cristoir

Had we not earned independence the most likely reason for that would have been the British growing a brain and not killing the organisers of the rising and not attempting to introduce conscription. Had they done this than Sinn Fein would have been a foot note in our history. The IPP would have won the 1918 election and continued the push for home rule. Home Rule would probably have been introduced after the 1929 election. We would have then fought in the 2nd World War. If we where still nationalistic enough to want independence we probably would have got in under the Atlee government of 1945 - 1951 hopefully after the infrastructure for the Irish NHS was put in place. We also then would have most certainly join NATO.

Quite a bit of speculation in the above but I do enjoy alternative history :P.

Seanchai

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Surely it depends on whether they're using the term as a political point or whether it's something they use because that's the generally accepted geographical term for the islands, one that's also been used in Irish text books as far as I remember.

When referring to the islands of Ireland and Britain, what collective term do you use?

It's disingenuous to contend that "British Isles" is merely a geographical claim. Its first use in the English language is by the English imperialist John Dee, when claiming Ireland for the English crown. It has only gained currency in the English language in parallel with British claims to Ireland since the 17th century. It did not exist in the English language before that. So forgive me if I'll pass on the "it's only geographical" nonsense spouted by jingoistic British nationalists.

Second, it's not the "generally accepted geographical term" - "Britain and Ireland" (and its variants) is much more common - and you won't find "British Isles" used in any Irish textbook, or by the Irish media (with very rare exceptions) or by the Irish state. "Britain and Ireland" is much more common, and I would use that or the Atlantic Archipelago if ever I had a need to link Ireland with Britain (and I don't; as a geographical reference point for Ireland we are in Europe). Anybody using the term "British Isles" knows precisely its political meaning, and uses it to make a political statement.

British Isles naming dispute

Historians' views on the term "British Isles"

twinQuins

I think it's far more likely that you're just projecting your political views onto the term. Not everyone is up to speed on the latest national dick-waving terminology.

Seanchai

twinQuins wrote: »

I think it's far more likely that you're just projecting your political views onto the term.

Ah, so calling Ireland part of the "British Isles" after centuries of British military and political rule in Ireland has no political connotations? :rolleyes:

golden lane

Seanchai wrote: »

Ah, so calling Ireland part of the "British Isles" after centuries of British military and political rule in Ireland has no political connotations? :rolleyes:

nothing whatsoever.....british isles was mentioned by aristitle....and plinyb the elder.....

Seanchai

later12 wrote: »

Eh Seanchai I referred to the British Isles in the early 20th century because back then there was no ambiguity about the matter, Ireland was part of the British Isles and the United Kingdom. Link to post:

Ireland was never part of the British Isles. It was all part of the "United Kingdom" once, but its "part" of the "British Isles" was always something claimed by nationalistically-minded British people who wanted to create a "British" nation that included Ireland. The term was never popular in Ireland. Indeed, even English writers like Francis Bacon famously avoided using it and opted for the less politically charged "Great Britain and Ireland".

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

Of course it could be. Ballincollig has almost twice the population of Tuvalu, and is almost as big as Palau. Small economies with no natural resources find lots of clever, inventive ways of financing themselves; just look at Ireland - a country whose economic viability as an independent state has itself been called into serious question throughout the 20th century, and today.

If Saor Ballincollig is viable then so is the republic of Ireland, many times over.

Now since I live on country time (meaning early to bed early to rise) and am wrecked after "chatting" with you till the wee small hours last night and then getting up at sunrise, I am in no mood for argument/counterargument all day long. So I will bow out, till another day.
Thanks for the chat. Slán.

Toby Take a Bow

Seanchai wrote: »

Second, it's not the "generally accepted geographical term" - "Britain and Ireland" (and its variants) is much more common - and you won't find "British Isles" used in any Irish textbook, or by the Irish media (with very rare exceptions) or by the Irish state.

I was referring to Irish text books in the past using the term 'the British Isles'. That link you referred to would suggest that I was right and that, recently, the term has fallen out of favour. I'd say it's more disingenuous to suggest that the British Isles was never considered a geographical term, when Fallons were including it in their Atlas for schools. Clearly there's a political subtext to it, and it's good that the term 'Britain and Ireland' or maybe the islands of Britain and Ireland are being used so as not to cause offense, but it wasn't always the case.

Seanchai wrote: »

"Britain and Ireland" is much more common, and I would use that or the Atlantic Archipelago if ever I had a need to link Ireland with Britain (and I don't; as a geographical reference point for Ireland we are in Europe). Anybody using the term "British Isles" knows precisely its political meaning, and uses it to make a political statement.

Good luck using the 'Atlantic Archipelago' as a common reference point for the islands of Ireland and Britain (despite it being referenced in the title of a book once). I'd say you might have to clarify what exactly you're referring to.