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

Ms.M

lazygal wrote: »

it would have been a far greater use of time to teach a modern European or Asian language. How many fluent Irish speakers are there, outside Gaeltacht areas, who speak it on a daily basis because they learned it in school?

Most Irish speakers who speak it on a regular basis learnt it through the school system and were not raised in the Gaeltacht actually. And Irish does not detract from time that could be spent studying a language more than any other subject does. Also, as someone who speaks a fair few languages with some fluency, I can tell you it's a hell of a lot easier to maintain a level of fluency in Irish in Ireland than French, German or Spanish. Even if we did do French say, from the age of four, I actually think there'd be less people speaking it on a daily basis than there are speaking Irish now. English dominates, c'est la vie!

EoghanIRL

mikemac1 wrote: »

Dublin had its chance at being capital

Time for somewhere new

I say Cashel as used by Brian Boru :cool:

We all know cork is the real capital :cool:

Toby Take a Bow

Ms.M wrote: »

And Irish does not detract from time that could be spent studying a language more than any other subject does. Also, as someone who speaks a fair few languages with some fluency, I can tell you it's a hell of a lot easier to maintain a level of fluency in Irish in Ireland than French, German or Spanish.

There is also a persuasive argument that having a second language from an early age makes if far easier to learn more languages.

LordSutch

Seanchai wrote: »

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".

Nothing wrong with 'Great Britain and Ireland' as a term as it covers the two islands and that's great. The term British isles however encompasses this whole archipellago of all six thousand islands, large and small, and some very small indeed, from the outer Hebrides to the isle of white and the Scilly isles + Rockall. I would use the term only in a geographical sense as do many people who live on these isles.

The UK & Ireland (Rep of) is sufficient for this thread.

indioblack

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Yea, that their panzer tactics could have been so effective does seem counter-intuitive at first glance.

I guess the myths arose because the reality that between them the French and British could (not would) have actually prevented the whole mess would have been quite hard to stomach.
The attitude of appeasement that allowed the move into the Rhineland and which prevented the Czechoslovakians (who had good army and could have actually put up a good fight) from fighting instead just giving their quite sizeable amount of equipment to the Germans, combined with the strength of the French army that as explained above wasn't used to its full ability, were big mistakes.

I'm not being critical of either country, just an analysis.
The judging of people from hindsight I'll leave to others , as there was no way of knowing what those polices would ultimately lead to when faced with the threat that was to come.

Yes, that period of appeasement, with countries unwilling to see the way the wind was blowing - at the cost of other countries independance.
With Britain and France wanting to believe in Hitler's promises, thinking he would honour agreements, really just wanting the approaching storm to go away.
And, as you mentioned, countries which, together, could have shown a strong front - the possibility of scaring Hitler - although I think Hitler and Mussolini in power would always be something requiring a solution.
In modern jargon a "pre-emptive strike" - but this would have moved France, the Czechs and Poles, (and Britain too), towards the position of being the aggressors.
And the period of the Phoney War - surely another lost opportunity.

bluecode

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.

This is the truth of it. We got independence too early. It was indeed the cruellest act of the British, albeit without malice or being aware of the cruelty. They were in the process of righting many of the wrongs of their rule in Ireland. But once we were cut loose. We were on our own, desperately ill equipped to rule ourselves and bereft of the money and the skills needed to bring the country up to the standards of other ordinary European countries.

It say it all that we only began to reach those standards back in the late nineties when the Celtic Tiger was a cub.

We in our naivety believed we had the future in our hands. But we didn't. We needed enormous amounts of British taxpayers money to redress the many wrongs wrought on us by British rule. But it evaporated the day the last British soldier marched onto a ship home.

If the same thing happened today we would have been propped up by international funding until we got back on our feet. Probably the IMF and the EU and even the British. Rather ironic don't you think? Back then there was no money.

My own opinion is that the best scenario for real Irish independance was for us to have lost in 1921, with Dev, Collins and the rest locked up for a while. The British meanwhile would have learned the lesson and accelerated the reforms and poured money into Ireland in order to prevent further rebellion. I think ultimately this would have led to Home rule by the end of the twenties and probably dominion status by the thirties. Most likely a Republic by the end of the forties. Probably with a similar relationship that Britain has with Australia and New Zealand.

We would all have been better off.

With no Northern Ireland.

But if you want to know what Ireland would be like today under British rule. You only have to go to Northern Ireland. Just imagine the whole of Ireland like that without the bigots of course.

But effectively we're once again a colony. A different ruler admittedly. But we must live by their rules and our lives are affected constantly by the demands they place on us.

Sad really.