How long before Irish reunification?

Dytalus

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't solve the problem of Brexit, it addresses some aspects of it. Ireland would still be much better off if Brexit never happens.

Okay, fair point.

But I don't think it's realistic to expect Brexit won't happen. I don't think there's anything Ireland nor the EU can do to convince the UK not to do it. Not with the current government in power in the UK, and not with the Remain side seemingly having given up on any kind of mobilisation. Saying a "United Ireland doesn't solve Brexit" and meaning either "It won't stop Brexit" or "Prevent Brexit hurting us" is really a massive stretch of an ask. Brexit is going to happen, and we are going to get hurt by it. Potentially disastrously.

What it does do (potentially) is remove the UK's problem with the Withdrawal Agreement - the backstop. If that can get them to sign it (I don't think it will, there'll always be something wrong with it) then we, and the EU, would be in much better shape with the WA and a transition period than a No-Deal and immediately seeing the walls come slamming down.

So yes, a United Ireland could potentially (it's far from a sure thing) solve the biggest threat of Brexit - that of a no-deal, no-WA Brexit - by removing the UK's biggest obstacle to signing the WA. Whether the resulting economic shock of Brexit (even one with the Withdrawal Agreement) combined with unification is something a United Ireland could survive is the follow up challenge/question.

Fan of Netflix

30-40 years

I change opinions a lot on this but I think by around 2040 we could be ready for a referendum due to demographic changes. Anything before is a recipe for trouble. I see nothing to suggest Fianna Fail or Fine Gael have any serious interest pushing for this in the next 10 years.

What Sinn Fein and Mary McDonald think and say is irrelevant to the situation. They have no power and are in freefall.

downcow

shesty wrote: »

Four months ago I thought maybe in my lifetime.Maybe.

Now the noises I am hearing in the last week or so are suggesting to me maybe a bit sooner than just my lifetime.And that this is being considered as a real possibility.

There's lot of posts here about how hard it will be, how much work there will be, the million reasons why it would be a mess.

But it is like Brexit in that regard -it will a s$%tshow for a period of time, but that does not mean that it cannot happen.And if push comes to shove, that it could happen sooner rather than later.

I mean if you were looking at it in a cold, clinical way, it is the obvious solution to the whole Brexit mess.Cut NI out of Britain, Brexit is solved.The Brits can dance merrily off into the sunset, and fundamentally, we are left with the mess (because there is no way in hell Britain would be helping out once it has exited stage left).Unfortunately, this is a prospect that is now raising it's head.I am detecting mild panic beginning to come from Leinster House in this regard.

None of the bureaucratical mess that could be left behind will matter though, if the violence returns.I just don't think I could stomach the thought of that.

Just remember there are almost 1 million Brits living on this Island and I don't think they will all be dancing off into the sunset

mattser

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

I change opinions a lot on this but I think by around 2040 we could be ready for a referendum due to demographic changes. Anything before is a recipe for trouble. I see nothing to suggest Fianna Fail or Fine Gael have any serious interest pushing for this in the next 10 years.

What Sinn Fein and Mary McDonald think and say is irrelevant to the situation. They have no power and are in freefall.

Amen to that

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Just remember there are almost 1 million Brits living on this Island and I don't think they will all be dancing off into the sunset

The vast majority of whom are democrats who despite the Never Never Never whipping up by their fellow belligerent Unionists accepted the AIA, The GFA, the normalisation of flag display and parading. None of the above Armageddons were realised or sustained. Now we will see the institution of Same Sex Marriage and Abortions rights without much of a whimper.
The last successful Unionist challenge to the democratic will of the people was the Ulster Workers Strike which only succeeded because it had help from the British Army. (although history shows that that too was a case of shooting themselves in the foot).

downcow

Its the way of the world Francie. The IRA accepted British rule in Ireland, SF sitting in Stormont, etc, etc, etc.

So I agree with you that ists unlikely their would be a sustained violent campaign of much significance from either the unionists in a united Ireland or the Republicans with a hard border. Its all being over-egged and used by many.

I was simply making the point that there would be 1 million unionists needing to be accommodated. Thats a lot of crocodiles to feed lol - and we all know how demanding a minority population of hungry crocodiles can be. It would be interesting for unionists to be the crocs being fed as opposed to being the ones doing the feeding. I would nearly want a UI just to watch it happening and watch the British community demand all the stuff on the Island that the Irish have managed up north lol

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Its the way of the world Francie. The IRA accepted British rule in Ireland, SF sitting in Stormont, etc, etc, etc.

So I agree with you that ists unlikely their would be a sustained violent campaign of much significance from either the unionists in a united Ireland or the Republicans with a hard border. Its all being over-egged and used by many.

I was simply making the point that there would be 1 million unionists needing to be accommodated. Thats a lot of crocodiles to feed lol - and we all know how demanding a minority population of hungry crocodiles can be. It would be interesting for unionists to be the crocs being fed as opposed to being the ones doing the feeding. I would nearly want a UI just to watch it happening and watch the British community demand all the stuff on the Island that the Irish have managed up north lol

Inherent in that piece ^ again is the pride Unionists seem to have in being 'fed'.
It is as if you have made a 'victory' out of being a basket case economy.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Inherent in that piece ^ again is the pride Unionists seem to have in being 'fed'.
It is as if you have made a 'victory' out of being a basket case economy.

The reasons for the basket case economy are many and varied.

There is a very strong argument that the overriding reason is the IRA campaign. West Belfast is one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe. Gerry Adams was MP for decades and did nothing for local jobs.

Even when blame can be placed on governmental mistakes, the overall focus on dealing with the terrorist campaign detracted from government effort and energy on economic matters. In effect, I believe that Northern Ireland lost 40 years of economic development because a small minority of people (who had extremely low levels of popular support during that time) decided to try and bomb the British out of Northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The reasons for the basket case economy are many and varied.

There is a very strong argument that the overriding reason is the IRA campaign. West Belfast is one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe. Gerry Adams was MP for decades and did nothing for local jobs.

Even when blame can be placed on governmental mistakes, the overall focus on dealing with the terrorist campaign detracted from government effort and energy on economic matters. In effect, I believe that Northern Ireland lost 40 years of economic development because a small minority of people (who had extremely low levels of popular support during that time) decided to try and bomb the British out of Northern Ireland.

Which beautifully ignores the fact (again) that Unionism took the benefits of the state for itself for the first 70 years of the statlet's sectarian and bigoted existence. Gerrymandering power and denying economic prosperity, education and housing rights to the minority population.

But yeh...twas all the 'RA's fault.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which beautifully ignores the fact (again) that Unionism took the benefits of the state for itself for the first 70 years of the statlet's sectarian and bigoted existence. Gerrymandering power and denying economic prosperity, education and housing rights to the minority population.

But yeh...twas all the 'RA's fault.

None of that is relevant to the economic state of Northern Ireland. Change was coming with the civil rights movement before the IRA took it into terrorist activity.

For the first fifty years, the economy of Northern Ireland was ahead of the economy of the South, mostly because of the deluded self-sufficient ideas of Dev and FF.

From the mid-1960s, as the traditional industries suffered in the North, their economy failed to adapt. With the commencement of the IRA campaign their eyes were completely off the ball as they dealt with the security threat and remedial measures for the economy were either impossible because of the security situation or less of a priority because of the security situation. It is only since the IRA were stopped that the economy up there has made a recovery.

Think Lebanon, think Syria, think other countries where terrorists have been let loose. The economy suffers as a result of the terrorist activity.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

None of that is relevant to the economic state of Northern Ireland. Change was coming with the civil rights movement before the IRA took it into terrorist activity.

For the first fifty years, the economy of Northern Ireland was ahead of the economy of the South, mostly because of the deluded self-sufficient ideas of Dev and FF.

From the mid-1960s, as the traditional industries suffered in the North, their economy failed to adapt. With the commencement of the IRA campaign their eyes were completely off the ball as they dealt with the security threat and remedial measures for the economy were either impossible because of the security situation or less of a priority because of the security situation. It is only since the IRA were stopped that the economy up there has made a recovery.

Think Lebanon, think Syria, think other countries where terrorists have been let loose. The economy suffers as a result of the terrorist activity.

The 'economy' was not functioning for almost half of it's population.

Of course the conflict/war harmed the economy, they always do. But the conflict/war didn't begin because a bunch of themun's were lolling around and bored.

Get a grip on the whole context blanch. You are getting boring now.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'economy' was not functioning for almost half of it's population.

Of course the conflict/war harmed the economy, they always do. But the conflict/war didn't begin because a bunch of themun's were lolling around and bored.

Get a grip on the whole context blanch. You are getting boring now.

That simply isn't true.

Northern Ireland didn't need to export its population from the 1930s to the 1950s, as it was able to sustain living standards and provide jobs. The South did.

You can legitimately argue that Catholics in the North weren't doing as well as Protestants in the North, but the evidence would suggest that people in the South were worse off again during that time.

Two things changed - economic development in the South, and the IRA campaign in the North - to change that dynamic around.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That simply isn't true.

Northern Ireland didn't need to export its population from the 1930s to the 1950s, as it was able to sustain living standards and provide jobs. The South did.

You can legitimately argue that Catholics in the North weren't doing as well as Protestants in the North, but the evidence would suggest that people in the South were worse off again during that time.

Two things changed - economic development in the South, and the IRA campaign in the North - to change that dynamic around.

So you are saying the civil rights campaign was based on a feeling that Catholics 'weren't doing as well' as Protestants? Seriously?

You are also seriously suggesting that northern Catholics should have looked at their southern counterparts and laid down because they were doing better?

And are you forgetting, in your attempt to blame your boogeymen, that it was Unionists who brought the place to an economic standstill to block any deal that would see equality?

But yeh...twas all the 'RA's fault.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'economy' was not functioning for almost half of it's population.

Of course the conflict/war harmed the economy, they always do. But the conflict/war didn't begin because a bunch of themun's were lolling around and bored.

Get a grip on the whole context blanch. You are getting boring now.

That simply isn't true.

Northern Ireland didn't need to export its population from the 1930s to the 1950s, as it was able to sustain living standards and provide jobs. The South did.

You can legitimately argue that Catholics in the North weren't doing as well as Protestants in the North, but the evidence would suggest that people in the South were worse off again during that time.

Two things changed - economic development in the South, and the IRA campaign in the North - to change that dynamic around.

I mean you could certainly argue that the people in the South were worse off again. I'd love to see some data on it if it's based on the evidence as you've suggested.

I've always been of the opinion that a mixture of terrible political mismanagement, fading industries with no plan B and the obvious economic impact of war were responsible for the mess that is the economy of the North. I think it would be a foolish oversimplification to try and pick one factor out in isolation, as you and Francie seem to be doing to blame, 'themmuns' for everything. My own factors are likely a gross simplification too, but it isn't something I've researched hugely. I've tried to think more about how we can fix things than what caused them.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you are saying the civil rights campaign was based on a feeling that Catholics 'weren't doing as well' as Protestants? Seriously?

You are also seriously suggesting that northern Catholics should have looked at their southern counterparts and laid down because they were doing better?

And are you forgetting, in your attempt to blame your boogeymen, that it was Unionists who brought the place to an economic standstill to block any deal that would see equality?

But yeh...twas all the 'RA's fault.

What?????

Read what I said, not what you think I said. Your response extrapolates things I didn't say from what I said in order to reinforce your warped worldview of partitionists bad, republicans good, no matter the facts.

You said "The 'economy' was not functioning for almost half of it's population", talking about the pre-1969 period.

That is what I responded to, nothing about what the civil rights campaign was based on, nothing about northern Catholics laying down, nothing about Unionists blocking a deal in 2019.

Get real here, you made a completely wrong statement, I called you out on it, and you are unable to absorb that into your worldview. Remember I said that "you can legitimately argue that Catholics in the North weren't doing as well as Protestants in the North". What I am absolutely clear on is that economically people in the North (including Catholics) were much better off in the period from 1920 to 1960 than people in the South. That is why the South suffered from mass emigration to an extent that the North did not, that is why the North didn't see mass popular rebellion against sectarian policies, because they looked South and saw things were worse off down there.

Yes, the unionists implemented sectarian policies, yes they didn't spot the changing trends in economic development, but also yes, there were higher living standards in the North up until the IRA campaign changed things.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I mean you could certainly argue that the people in the South were worse off again. I'd love to see some data on it if it's based on the evidence as you've suggested.

I've always been of the opinion that a mixture of terrible political mismanagement, fading industries with no plan B and the obvious economic impact of war were responsible for the mess that is the economy of the North. I think it would be a foolish oversimplification to try and pick one factor out in isolation, as you and Francie seem to be doing to blame, 'themmuns' for everything. My own factors are likely a gross simplification too, but it isn't something I've researched hugely. I've tried to think more about how we can fix things than what caused them.

I am not picking out one factor in isolation to blame.

I see the terrorist campaign as the primary factor in the economic decline of the North. Every country subject to sustained terrorist campaigns that disrupt everyday life suffer economically, and all of their citizens suffer as a result. Yes, there was a failure to see the changes in economic development, but to many in the North, the blame for the decline in traditional industries was put on the terrorist campaign because that was the easy target for blame, so there was some indirect responsibility borne by the terrorist campaign for that too. Without the terrorist campaign, those economic changes may well have been spotted and reacted to, we will never know.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I mean you could certainly argue that the people in the South were worse off again. I'd love to see some data on it if it's based on the evidence as you've suggested.

I've always been of the opinion that a mixture of terrible political mismanagement, fading industries with no plan B and the obvious economic impact of war were responsible for the mess that is the economy of the North. I think it would be a foolish oversimplification to try and pick one factor out in isolation, as you and Francie seem to be doing to blame, 'themmuns' for everything. My own factors are likely a gross simplification too, but it isn't something I've researched hugely. I've tried to think more about how we can fix things than what caused them.

I am not picking out one factor in isolation to blame.

I see the terrorist campaign as the primary factor in the economic decline of the North. Every country subject to sustained terrorist campaigns that disrupt everyday life suffer economically, and all of their citizens suffer as a result. Yes, there was a failure to see the changes in economic development, but to many in the North, the blame for the decline in traditional industries was put on the terrorist campaign because that was the easy target for blame, so there was some indirect responsibility borne by the terrorist campaign for that too. Without the terrorist campaign, those economic changes may well have been spotted and reacted to, we will never know.

You can apply that logic to any of the factors above, Blanch.

Blaming terrorism for the decline of traditional industries may have been done, but as we all know, those industries were declining across the entirety of the western world. It would've hardly taken an expert economist to point that out?

One could say that any country subject to political mismanagement of that scale (without a ridiculous amount of some valuable natural resource to inflate said economy) would suffer economically.

I'm certainly not arguing that it wasnt a factor, I just would have trouble accepting it as the primary factor, especially when it's very easy to make the argument that the political mismanagement factor (directly or indirectly) led to it, in a much stronger way than the conflict led to the decline of traditional industries as you highlighted.

Also, just to clarify, in my previous post when I asked for data/evidence, that wasn't snark - I would genuinely really enjoy reading that. I would be very surprised if the evidence showed that the average Catholic in the North had a lower quality of life than the average person in the South.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You can apply that logic to any of the factors above, Blanch.

Blaming terrorism for the decline of traditional industries may have been done, but as we all know, those industries were declining across the entirety of the western world. It would've hardly taken an expert economist to point that out?

One could say that any country subject to political mismanagement of that scale (without a ridiculous amount of some valuable natural resource to inflate said economy) would suffer economically.

I'm certainly not arguing that it wasnt a factor, I just would have trouble accepting it as the primary factor, especially when it's very easy to make the argument that the political mismanagement factor (directly or indirectly) led to it, in a much stronger way than the conflict led to the decline of traditional industries as you highlighted.

Also, just to clarify, in my previous post when I asked for data/evidence, that wasn't snark - I would genuinely really enjoy reading that. I would be very surprised if the evidence showed that the average Catholic in the North had a lower quality of life than the average person in the South.

There is an element of chicken and egg.

Political mismanagement of the economy is inevitable when dealing with the scale of that terrorist campaign, but was it previous political mismanagement that caused the terrorist campaign? Different viewpoints can be had, but while there is a legitimate debate over what was the primary factor in the North's economic decline (and a primary factor may only be 20% responsible if there were multiple other factors), any suggestion that the actions of the IRA were blameless is nonsense.

On the data question, it is very difficult to separate Catholic and Protestant economic data in the North from the 1930s to the 1960s, so it is impossible to be conclusive on the point. However, the evidence is that living standards were higher in the North throughout that period, emigration was less in the North, employment was higher in the North and anecdotal evidence further supports the contention.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What?????

Read what I said, not what you think I said. Your response extrapolates things I didn't say from what I said in order to reinforce your warped worldview of partitionists bad, republicans good, no matter the facts.

You said "The 'economy' was not functioning for almost half of it's population", talking about the pre-1969 period.

That is what I responded to, nothing about what the civil rights campaign was based on, nothing about northern Catholics laying down, nothing about Unionists blocking a deal in 2019.

Get real here, you made a completely wrong statement, I called you out on it, and you are unable to absorb that into your worldview. Remember I said that "you can legitimately argue that Catholics in the North weren't doing as well as Protestants in the North". What I am absolutely clear on is that economically people in the North (including Catholics) were much better off in the period from 1920 to 1960 than people in the South. That is why the South suffered from mass emigration to an extent that the North did not, that is why the North didn't see mass popular rebellion against sectarian policies, because they looked South and saw things were worse off down there.

Yes, the unionists implemented sectarian policies, yes they didn't spot the changing trends in economic development, but also yes, there were higher living standards in the North up until the IRA campaign changed things.

"you can legitimately argue that Catholics in the North weren't doing as well as Protestants in the North".

This is the core of your nonsense, carefully phrased in order to point the finger at your perpetual boogeymen.

You have no interest in debate, all you are interested in is proving one thing.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There is an element of chicken and egg.

Political mismanagement of the economy is inevitable when dealing with the scale of that terrorist campaign, but was it previous political mismanagement that caused the terrorist campaign? Different viewpoints can be had, but while there is a legitimate debate over what was the primary factor in the North's economic decline (and a primary factor may only be 20% responsible if there were multiple other factors), any suggestion that the actions of the IRA were blameless is nonsense.

On the data question, it is very difficult to separate Catholic and Protestant economic data in the North from the 1930s to the 1960s, so it is impossible to be conclusive on the point. However, the evidence is that living standards were higher in the North throughout that period, emigration was less in the North, employment was higher in the North and anecdotal evidence further supports the contention.

Nobody...absolutely NOBODY suggested that the IRA were 'blameless'. So please don't start the janfebmar campaign of lies, that will later become something somebody actually said, no doubt.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You can apply that logic to any of the factors above, Blanch.

Blaming terrorism for the decline of traditional industries may have been done, but as we all know, those industries were declining across the entirety of the western world. It would've hardly taken an expert economist to point that out?

One could say that any country subject to political mismanagement of that scale (without a ridiculous amount of some valuable natural resource to inflate said economy) would suffer economically.

I'm certainly not arguing that it wasnt a factor, I just would have trouble accepting it as the primary factor, especially when it's very easy to make the argument that the political mismanagement factor (directly or indirectly) led to it, in a much stronger way than the conflict led to the decline of traditional industries as you highlighted.

Also, just to clarify, in my previous post when I asked for data/evidence, that wasn't snark - I would genuinely really enjoy reading that. I would be very surprised if the evidence showed that the average Catholic in the North had a lower quality of life than the average person in the South.

There is an element of chicken and egg.

Political mismanagement of the economy is inevitable when dealing with the scale of that terrorist campaign, but was it previous political mismanagement that caused the terrorist campaign? Different viewpoints can be had, but while there is a legitimate debate over what was the primary factor in the North's economic decline (and a primary factor may only be 20% responsible if there were multiple other factors), any suggestion that the actions of the IRA were blameless is nonsense.

On the data question, it is very difficult to separate Catholic and Protestant economic data in the North from the 1930s to the 1960s, so it is impossible to be conclusive on the point. However, the evidence is that living standards were higher in the North throughout that period, emigration was less in the North, employment was higher in the North and anecdotal evidence further supports the contention.

I agree 100% on the first point, Blanch, hence why I explicitly included it as a factor.

On the second point, to be frank, that's precisely what I expected. The plural of anecdote isn't data, as a wise man once told me.

I would've been very surprised if there was published data, differentiated by religion at the time, as it would've highlighted the discriminatory sh*show that it was to the world.

If data existed showing the difference in Quality of Life between Catholics and Protestants, I would imagine it would have been very rapidly hidden.

You are, of course, aware that in the context of this conversation, highlighting the overall higher quality of life in the North doesn't make any difference to the discussion. That isn't contentious at all. The distribution is the contentious part, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support your statement on that side of things. The closest we would really be able to look at would be the wealth and investment differentiation between the North East and the rest of the North, which would paint a very grim picture, particularly as that has continued even beyond the GFA.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I agree 100% on the first point, Blanch, hence why I explicitly included it as a factor.

On the second point, to be frank, that's precisely what I expected. The plural of anecdote isn't data, as a wise man once told me.

I would've been very surprised if there was published data, differentiated by religion at the time, as it would've highlighted the discriminatory sh*show that it was to the world.

If data existed showing the difference in Quality of Life between Catholics and Protestants, I would imagine it would have been very rapidly hidden.

You are, of course, aware that in the context of this conversation, highlighting the overall higher quality of life in the North doesn't make any difference to the discussion. That isn't contentious at all. The distribution is the contentious part, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support your statement on that side of things. The closest we would really be able to look at would be the wealth and investment differentiation between the North East and the rest of the North, which would paint a very grim picture, particularly as that has continued even beyond the GFA.

Maybe I should have been clearer.

I am not aware of any direct evidence and data that shows the difference between Catholics and Protestants in terms of living standards in the North during the period from 1922 to 1960.

However, there is plenty of indirect evidence, from emigration rates to unemployment rates to show that there wasn't the same level of economic suffering in the North that there was in the South. I know I said anecdotal evidence, but it would actually have been better phrased as indirect evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is when someone tells a story about their Catholic grandfather being a senior public servant in the North in 1937. Indirect evidence is when statistics can be used by proxy to ascertain probable situations e.g. in this case emigration and employment statistics.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Maybe I should have been clearer.

I am not aware of any direct evidence and data that shows the difference between Catholics and Protestants in terms of living standards in the North during the period from 1922 to 1960.

However, there is plenty of indirect evidence, from emigration rates to unemployment rates to show that there wasn't the same level of economic suffering in the North that there was in the South. I know I said anecdotal evidence, but it would actually have been better phrased as indirect evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is when someone tells a story about their Catholic grandfather being a senior public servant in the North in 1937. Indirect evidence is when statistics can be used by proxy to ascertain probable situations e.g. in this case emigration and employment statistics.

So basically you are just guessing from a very fixed (some would say biased) viewpoint.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So basically you are just guessing from a very fixed (some would say biased) viewpoint.

Nope, as my post makes quite clear.

Once again, you are reading something into my post that isn't there.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, as my post makes quite clear.

Once again, you are reading something into my post that isn't there.

If you got away with it, you'd be positing the theory that there was no right to look for civil rights.

I am pretty sure those who look for civil rights have a worse standard of living than those whom they believe are denying them civil rights.

You either think they were right to look for them, and therefore Catholics were worse off or that they were misguided, wrong or whatever it is you are trying to insinuate.

janfebmar

There were plenty of poor Protestants too who had the exact same voting rights as poor Catholics.

You would think Catholics were the most oppressed people ever.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I agree 100% on the first point, Blanch, hence why I explicitly included it as a factor.

On the second point, to be frank, that's precisely what I expected. The plural of anecdote isn't data, as a wise man once told me.

I would've been very surprised if there was published data, differentiated by religion at the time, as it would've highlighted the discriminatory sh*show that it was to the world.

If data existed showing the difference in Quality of Life between Catholics and Protestants, I would imagine it would have been very rapidly hidden.

You are, of course, aware that in the context of this conversation, highlighting the overall higher quality of life in the North doesn't make any difference to the discussion. That isn't contentious at all. The distribution is the contentious part, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support your statement on that side of things. The closest we would really be able to look at would be the wealth and investment differentiation between the North East and the rest of the North, which would paint a very grim picture, particularly as that has continued even beyond the GFA.

Maybe I should have been clearer.

I am not aware of any direct evidence and data that shows the difference between Catholics and Protestants in terms of living standards in the North during the period from 1922 to 1960.

However, there is plenty of indirect evidence, from emigration rates to unemployment rates to show that there wasn't the same level of economic suffering in the North that there was in the South. I know I said anecdotal evidence, but it would actually have been better phrased as indirect evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is when someone tells a story about their Catholic grandfather being a senior public servant in the North in 1937. Indirect evidence is when statistics can be used by proxy to ascertain probable situations e.g. in this case emigration and employment statistics.

I'm sure it wasn't intentional, Blanch, but it's incredibly patronising for you to take a post to provide definitions for terms you misused, not me. I'm aware of the definition of anecdote, direct evidence and indirect evidence, thank you.

More importantly, your indirect evidence doesn't really demonstrate what you suggest it does- there was a Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, so even if the data demonstrated what you claimed (not doubting it does, though I'd like to see the studies) it wouldn't hold out to your conclusion. Given the Unionist majority were positively discriminated towards, one would wholly expect there to be lower rates of emigration and higher rates of employment, as a majority of the population would not be expected to be suffering. It would certainly demonstrate that there was less economic suffering in the North vs the South in general, but it's a long way off even implying that Catholics in the North had it worse than the general population of the South.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you got away with it, you'd be positing the theory that there was no right to look for civil rights.

I am pretty sure those who look for civil rights have a worse standard of living than those whom they believe are denying them civil rights.

You either think they were right to look for them, and therefore Catholics were worse off or that they were misguided, wrong or whatever it is you are trying to insinuate.

What are you talking about?

What I have said is that the evidence is that Catholics in the North were worse off than Protestants in the North during the period from 1920 to 1960. Why you think I have said different to that and why are you trying to invent a disagreement with me on that point?

What I have also said is that the evidence (not anecdotes) clearly indicates even if only indirectly that the average Catholic in the North had a higher standard of living than the average person in the South during that same time-period.

Fionn1952 is making some legitimate points about the evidence backing up my statement, but you are looking again for things that just aren't there.

Your paranoia about partitionists and unionists and the boogeyman under the bed (well maybe not the last one) is preventing you from responding to well-argued and coherent points. Making up insinuations about other's posts and inventing arguments that they didn't make is not discussion.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What are you talking about?

What I have said is that the evidence is that Catholics in the North were worse off than Protestants in the North during the period from 1920 to 1960. Why you think I have said different to that and why are you trying to invent a disagreement with me on that point?

What I have also said is that the evidence (not anecdotes) clearly indicates even if only indirectly that the average Catholic in the North had a higher standard of living than the average person in the South during that same time-period.

Fionn1952 is making some legitimate points about the evidence backing up my statement, but you are looking again for things that just aren't there.

Your paranoia about partitionists and unionists and the boogeyman under the bed (well maybe not the last one) is preventing you from responding to well-argued and coherent points. Making up insinuations about other's posts and inventing arguments that they didn't make is not discussion.

You cannot make a point without pointing 'over there' at something.

When I made the point that the economy of Northern Ireland was not working for it's Catholic community, you immediately pointed to the South. Whatever that has to do with it.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, as my post makes quite clear.

Once again, you are reading something into my post that isn't there.

If you got away with it, you'd be positing the theory that there was no right to look for civil rights.

I am pretty sure those who look for civil rights have a worse standard of living than those whom they believe are denying them civil rights.

You either think they were right to look for them, and therefore Catholics were worse off or that they were misguided, wrong or whatever it is you are trying to insinuate.

Jaysus, Francie, I think you're way off base on this one. You're conflating two separate points.

I disagree with Blanch, but I don't think hes anywhere near what you're saying. It'd be easier read as;

1) the general population of the North had it much better than the general population of the South
2) the Catholic population in the North were unfairly discriminated against
3) Despite said discrimination, the overall higher standard of living in the North meant that even though they were discriminated against, they still had a higher (economic) standard of living than the population of the South.

While I don't agree with the premise, even if it was correct, it wouldn't in any way invalidate claims of discrimination in the North.

For example, if I highlighted that travellers were highly discriminated against here in Ireland, pointing out that they have it better than the average person in sub-saharan Africa wouldn't in any way make the discrimination they face here OK, nor would it be an argument against them campaigning against it. Travellers were just an example, so I'd greatly prefer if the conversation wasn't dragged off topic into a discussion around whether they are or are not discriminated against on my part!