How long before Irish reunification?

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

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.

Apologies for coming across as patronising in a response to you. It wasn't directed at you.

You have fair points, but if you are correct, then we would have seen a corresponding relative decline in the Catholic population in the North during the time-period i.e. the numbers of Protestants would have kept rising versus the number of Catholics.

We do know that the population of Northern Ireland continued to rise while the population of the South continued to decline.



I could take longer and go in to the details of this table but from 1926 to 1961 the Catholic percentage of the population slightly increasing. If birth rates were similar between the two, this would indicate that emigration was at the same level between Catholic and Protestant, supporting my thesis.

There is a sharp decline from 1961 to 1971. This could be attributed to a number of factors. The civil rights movement causing people to become aware of discrimination and emigrate? Possible, but I don't think it likely. The reason for that is that there was a corresponding increase in the percentage of people with no religion. It is more likely that some other event caused people to self-change. It could be Catholics living in Protestant areas in 1971 being afraid to self-identify as such, it could be Catholics unhappy with the nascent terrorist campaign in their name choosing no religion or it could be that the Census was incomplete. I don't know, but it would be interesting to see if there were any studies done of the causes.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

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!

Exactly.

If I am correct, or even if people North and South held that perception at the time, it would be an indicator of why the North remained relatively peaceful in the period from 1920 to 1960.

It would be ironic if the very things that changed Ireland in the early 1960s - the increased prosperity brought on by the Lemass government - were the catalyst for the civil rights movement and later the IRA, at a time when we had started to move away from what the Unionists most feared - a wholly Catholic Ireland.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

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!

The point is Fionn, what had it to do with the point I was making, When you get to know Blanch's debating style he continually wants to deflect away from what actually happened in NI. Don't get conned by his non partisan mask.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

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.

Apologies for coming across as patronising in a response to you. It wasn't directed at you.

You have fair points, but if you are correct, then we would have seen a corresponding relative decline in the Catholic population in the North during the time-period i.e. the numbers of Protestants would have kept rising versus the number of Catholics.

We do know that the population of Northern Ireland continued to rise while the population of the South continued to decline.



I could take longer and go in to the details of this table but from 1926 to 1961 the Catholic percentage of the population slightly increasing. If birth rates were similar between the two, this would indicate that emigration was at the same level between Catholic and Protestant, supporting my thesis.

There is a sharp decline from 1961 to 1971. This could be attributed to a number of factors. The civil rights movement causing people to become aware of discrimination and emigrate? Possible, but I don't think it likely. The reason for that is that there was a corresponding increase in the percentage of people with no religion. It is more likely that some other event caused people to self-change. It could be Catholics living in Protestant areas in 1971 being afraid to self-identify as such, it could be Catholics unhappy with the nascent terrorist campaign in their name choosing no religion or it could be that the Census was incomplete. I don't know, but it would be interesting to see if there were any studies done of the causes.

We're getting a bit close to 'A implies B, which implies C, which implies D' to really be taken seriously as supporting evidence at this point, Blanch. Particularly weak is the assumption that Catholic and Protestant birth rates were then same, to make your point hold out, when this certainly wasn't the case up until VERY recently.

For example, just as a totally off the cuff, completely unsupported explanation for your data, it could be that pre-1961, conditions were SO bad for the Catholic community that they were below the baseline where significant emigration is financially feasible. If, for example, things were SO bad that, to use a highly caricatured version of the North, the Unionist community were all sitting pretty, and the Catholics were living at barely subsistence level, one would expect your figures to hold out, as they couldn't afford to emigrate. I don't think this caricature is accurate, but it would explain the data as well as your hypothesis.

janfebmar

Fionn1952 wrote: »

, it could be that pre-1961, conditions were SO bad for the Catholic community that they were below the baseline where significant emigration is financially feasible. If, for example, things were SO bad that, to use a highly caricatured version of the North, the ..

Things in the 50's were never so bad they could not move to Britain or south of the border for example.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

We're getting a bit close to 'A implies B, which implies C, which implies D' to really be taken seriously as supporting evidence at this point, Blanch. Particularly weak is the assumption that Catholic and Protestant birth rates were then same, to make your point hold out, when this certainly wasn't the case up until VERY recently.

For example, just as a totally off the cuff, completely unsupported explanation for your data, it could be that pre-1961, conditions were SO bad for the Catholic community that they were below the baseline where significant emigration is financially feasible. If, for example, things were SO bad that, to use a highly caricatured version of the North, the Unionist community were all sitting pretty, and the Catholics were living at barely subsistence level, one would expect your figures to hold out, as they couldn't afford to emigrate. I don't think this caricature is accurate, but it would explain the data as well as your hypothesis.

It would indeed, but with many having relatives in the South, why didn't they join them down there?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Things in the 50's were never so bad they could not move to Britain or south of the border for example.

blanch152 wrote: »

It would indeed, but with many having relatives in the South, why didn't they join them down there?

The mask slips.

The two of you would have been against the Civil Rights campaign.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

We're getting a bit close to 'A implies B, which implies C, which implies D' to really be taken seriously as supporting evidence at this point, Blanch. Particularly weak is the assumption that Catholic and Protestant birth rates were then same, to make your point hold out, when this certainly wasn't the case up until VERY recently.

For example, just as a totally off the cuff, completely unsupported explanation for your data, it could be that pre-1961, conditions were SO bad for the Catholic community that they were below the baseline where significant emigration is financially feasible. If, for example, things were SO bad that, to use a highly caricatured version of the North, the Unionist community were all sitting pretty, and the Catholics were living at barely subsistence level, one would expect your figures to hold out, as they couldn't afford to emigrate. I don't think this caricature is accurate, but it would explain the data as well as your hypothesis.

It would indeed, but with many having relatives in the South, why didn't they join them down there?

Genuinely, I don't know, Blanch. That's one I can only give anecdotal evidence on, but the point wasn't to insinuate that it WAS the case, the point was that just because your explanation fits the data doesn't mean it's the reason for the data. Correlation doesn't equal causation and all that.

I'm aware I'm taking the soft position and not positing any specific explanation for anything, my argument is purely that I don't think your soft evidence holds out, and I xomt think we have sufficient information to make any comparison between the economic conditions of Northern Catholics vs average people in the South.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The mask slips.

The two of you would have been against the Civil Rights campaign.

x1,000,000,000,000

That does not make any sense.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Genuinely, I don't know, Blanch. That's one I can only give anecdotal evidence on, but the point wasn't to insinuate that it WAS the case, the point was that just because your explanation fits the data doesn't mean it's the reason for the data. Correlation doesn't equal causation and all that.

I'm aware I'm taking the soft position and not positing any specific explanation for anything, my argument is purely that I don't think your soft evidence holds out, and I xomt think we have sufficient information to make any comparison between the economic conditions of Northern Catholics vs average people in the South.

I will have a look at the data available when I have more time and see can I construct something to better support my arguments.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Genuinely, I don't know, Blanch. That's one I can only give anecdotal evidence on, but the point wasn't to insinuate that it WAS the case, the point was that just because your explanation fits the data doesn't mean it's the reason for the data. Correlation doesn't equal causation and all that.

I'm aware I'm taking the soft position and not positing any specific explanation for anything, my argument is purely that I don't think your soft evidence holds out, and I xomt think we have sufficient information to make any comparison between the economic conditions of Northern Catholics vs average people in the South.

I will have a look at the data available when I have more time and see can I construct something to better support my arguments.

I'd appreciate that, Blanch- I'm genuinely interested in seeing it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

x1,000,000,000,000

That does not make any sense.

Well I have often accused you of not having the self awareness to know what you are peddling.
If you cannot see it, I can't really (nor do I have much interest) in helping you.

Straight up question. Do you believe the Civil Rights Campaign was justified?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well I have often accused you of not having the self awareness to know what you are peddling.
If you cannot see it, I can't really (nor do I have much interest) in helping you.

Straight up question. Do you believe the Civil Rights Campaign was justified?

Yes

I have always been clear on that.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'd appreciate that, Blanch- I'm genuinely interested in seeing it.

There may be some further details in the census information that would clarify. Either that or some of the basic economic information available.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'd appreciate that, Blanch- I'm genuinely interested in seeing it.

There may be some further details in the census information that would clarify. Either that or some of the basic economic information available.

I think you'll have to go a bit deeper than basic economic information, Blanch - as I said, my first suspicion on the matter was that I would be very surprised if this information was widely published with a demographic breakdown. We're all in agreement that there was extensive, systemic discrimination, and I'd be surprised if this was openly published at the time.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes

I have always been clear on that.

So you agreed with their 6 demands?


1. "One man, one vote" which would allow all people over the age of 18 to vote in local council elections and remove the multiple votes held by business owners – known as the "business vote".
2. An end to gerrymandering electoral wards to produce an artificial unionist majority.
3. Prevention of discrimination in the allocation of government jobs.
4. Prevention of discrimination in the allocation of council housing.
5. The removal of the Special Powers Act.
6. The disbandment of the almost entirely Protestant Ulster Special Constabulary (B Specials).

If you supported the above as legitimate then by common sense my original point(before you went off on your look over there jaunt) was correct,
neither the economy or society was functioning for catholics in the sectarian state of NI.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

6. The disbandment of the almost entirely Protestant Ulster Special Constabulary (B Specials).

.

Maybe it would have encouraged more Catholics to join the police if their legs were not blown off by Republicans if / when they got in to their car / if they were not set up for murder by their friends in gaa clubs etc?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Maybe it would have encouraged more Catholics to join the police if their legs were not blown off by Republicans if / when they got in to their car / if they were not set up for murder by their friends in gaa clubs etc?

Do you believe the Civil Rights Campaign was justified?

janfebmar

I believe civil rights could and should have been improved for poor Protestants as well as poor Catholics. Yes, of course there was some discrimination against Catholics and I believe in peaceful protest. However there were poor Protestants as well as poor Catholics and Catholics were not MOPEs.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I believe civil rights could and should have been improved for poor Protestants as well as poor Catholics. Yes, of course there was some discrimination against Catholics and I believe in peaceful protest. However there were poor Protestants as well as poor Catholics and Catholics were not MOPEs.

Do you believe the Civil Rights Campaign was justified?

ltd440

20-30 years

Just my opinion, op I don't see it happening any time soon. Maybe NI breaks away from the rest of the UK if a no deal brexit happens and if the UK economy slides. Maybe NI decides to go back to the EU, but only as an independent country, because a United Ireland would be too difficult a pill for a lot of them to swallow.
Rory mcllroy is an interesting view into successful Catholics in NI (watch the thread catch fire) he has no interest in the ROI, he just wants to be a citizen of NI. I'd say a lot of the people there think the same

blanch152

20-30 years

blanch152 wrote: »

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

The agenda here is quite phenomenal. And it's comical that you choose to look down on the South regarding, of all things, emigration. Not once had you the integrity to admit that in the North the central way in which the unionist régime kept the nationalist population in check was by making sure their areas had far higher unemployment and thus far higher emigration rates. Between 1937 and 1961, for instance, Catholics represented one-third of the population but 55-58% of the emigrants (Statistics here). In other words, emigration from Catholic areas of the North was over twice the rate it was from unionist areas. There were in reality two very different economic worlds and for you to come on here without making that very real distinction as you attempt to laud the Northern economy speaks volumes more about your "British Isles", "Home Countries", all-roads-lead-to-England inferiority complex.

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, the unionists implemented sectarian policies, yes they didn't spot the changing trends in economic development

Ever hear of the 'West of the Bann policy'? The Benson Report? Mathew Report? Wilson Report or any of the rest of the economic policies which actually planned that economic development for the unionist areas east of the Bann, while further denuding the nationalist-dominated west of its already sparse infrastructure such as the Derry train service? The Stormont government was acutely aware of economic trends so much so that all of these reports were strongly influenced by the success of the First Programme for Economic Expansion (1958-63) in Dublin, which is somewhat ironic given the impression you're giving here that NI was some forward-thinking, thriving economic centre (rather than a heavily subsidised region that would have firmly sunk without wealth transfers from London).

In reality, NI was in enormous decline after WWII so much so that it also copied much of the IDA's policy of attracting foreign investment to replace the traditional shipping and linen industries. There was also massive unemployment in agriculture in these years, a trend of mechanisation leading to greater unemployment which had been clear in the western world since at least the agricultural revolution in the 18th century and the Luddites in early 19th-century England.

They didn't "spot" these trends? In the real world, they astutely spotted those areas which had nationalist majorities that had to be kept in check and the residents incentivised to emigrate. Starving nationalist areas, where the residents "bred like rabbits", of economic investment was an absolutely central economic and political plank of the entire Stormont régime to ensure their demographic majority. The whole state's existence not merely depended upon emigration (which is something than can be said about the Irish state), but it depended upon a particular ethno-sectarian type of emigration (which is something that cannot be said even by you about the Irish state). The nationalist population in the Six Counties would be incomparably greater today were it not for the very targeted economic policy of unionism to increase emigration from nationalist areas. They would have been a majority decades ago.

The governing Unionist régime was also more than acutely aware of the very thing (along with the transmission of US civil rights protests via televisions) which guaranteed that a civil rights' movement would emerge; the rising standard of education of nationalists. They tried to control this, most infamously via where they located the new university (Coleraine, in the unionist east) rather than in the most natural place, the second city of Derry, west of the Bann. Despite your contention of a superior Northern economy, in every single respect the North was at least as bad as the South; it was solely transfers from London which allowed it to appear more successful. Indeed, by 1962 the South's economy was firmly ahead of the North and much more modern. Anger at this economic decline in NI led to the Northern Ireland Labour Party receiving a whopping 15.8% of the vote in the 1962 Stormont election, leading to the final overthrow of Brookeborough 10 months later.

FrancieBrady

ltd440 wrote: »

Just my opinion, op I don't see it happening any time soon. Maybe NI breaks away from the rest of the UK if a no deal brexit happens and if the UK economy slides. Maybe NI decides to go back to the EU, but only as an independent country, because a United Ireland would be too difficult a pill for a lot of them to swallow.
Rory mcllroy is an interesting view into successful Catholics in NI (watch the thread catch fire) he has no interest in the ROI, he just wants to be a citizen of NI. I'd say a lot of the people there think the same

There isn't a single political voice looking for an 'independent NI'.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

The agenda here is quite phenomenal. And it's comical that you choose to look down on the South regarding, of all things, emigration. Not once had you the integrity to admit that in the North the central way in which the unionist régime kept the nationalist population in check was by making sure their areas had far higher unemployment and thus far higher emigration rates. Between 1937 and 1961, for instance, Catholics represented one-third of the population but 55-58% of the emigrants (Statistics here). In other words, emigration from Catholic areas of the North was over twice the rate it was from unionist areas. There were in reality two very different economic worlds and for you to come on here without making that very real distinction as you attempt to laud the Northern economy speaks volumes more about your "British Isles", "Home Countries", all-roads-lead-to-England inferiority complex.




Ever hear of the 'West of the Bann policy'? The Benson Report? Mathew Report? Wilson Report or any of the rest of the economic policies which actually planned that economic development for the unionist areas east of the Bann, while further denuding the nationalist-dominated west of its already sparse infrastructure such as the Derry train service? The Stormont government was acutely aware of economic trends so much so that all of these reports were strongly influenced by the success of the First Programme for Economic Expansion (1958-63) in Dublin, which is somewhat ironic given the impression you're giving here that NI was some forward-thinking, thriving economic centre (rather than a heavily subsidised region that would have firmly sunk without wealth transfers from London).

In reality, NI was in enormous decline after WWII so much so that it also copied much of the IDA's policy of attracting foreign investment to replace the traditional shipping and linen industries. There was also massive unemployment in agriculture in these years, a trend of mechanisation leading to greater unemployment which had been clear in the western world since at least the agricultural revolution in the 18th century and the Luddites in early 19th-century England.

They didn't "spot" these trends? In the real world, they astutely spotted those areas which had nationalist majorities that had to be kept in check and the residents incentivised to emigrate. Starving nationalist areas, where the residents "bred like rabbits", of economic investment was an absolutely central economic and political plank of the entire Stormont régime to ensure their demographic majority. The whole state's existence not merely depended upon emigration (which is something than can be said about the Irish state), but it depended upon a particular ethno-sectarian type of emigration (which is something that cannot be said even by you about the Irish state). The nationalist population in the Six Counties would be incomparably greater today were it not for the very targeted economic policy of unionism to increase emigration from nationalist areas. They would have been a majority decades ago.

The governing Unionist régime was also more than acutely aware of the very thing (along with the transmission of US civil rights protests via televisions) which guaranteed that a civil rights' movement would emerge; the rising standard of education of nationalists. They tried to control this, most infamously via where they located the new university (Coleraine, in the unionist east) rather than in the most natural place, the second city of Derry, west of the Bann. Despite your contention of a superior Northern economy, in every single respect the North was at least as bad as the South; it was solely transfers from London which allowed it to appear more successful. Indeed, by 1962 the South's economy was firmly ahead of the North and much more modern. Anger at this economic decline in NI led to the Northern Ireland Labour Party receiving a whopping 15.8% of the vote in the 1962 Stormont election, leading to the final overthrow of Brookeborough 10 months later.

No doubt blanch is busy trying to slant his figures for a (I have to say) gullible Fionn. I did warn him.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you agreed with their 6 demands?


1. "One man, one vote" which would allow all people over the age of 18 to vote in local council elections and remove the multiple votes held by business owners – known as the "business vote".
2. An end to gerrymandering electoral wards to produce an artificial unionist majority.
3. Prevention of discrimination in the allocation of government jobs.
4. Prevention of discrimination in the allocation of council housing.
5. The removal of the Special Powers Act.
6. The disbandment of the almost entirely Protestant Ulster Special Constabulary (B Specials).

If you supported the above as legitimate then by common sense my original point(before you went off on your look over there jaunt) was correct,
neither the economy or society was functioning for catholics in the sectarian state of NI.

None of that contradicts anything I posted, you missed the point by a mile again.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

None of that contradicts anything I posted, you missed the point by a mile again.

Simple question...simple answer required.

You 'have always been clear' on the justification of the Civil Rights Campaign.

Did you agree with their 6 demands?

ltd440

20-30 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ltd440 wrote: »

Just my opinion, op I don't see it happening any time soon. Maybe NI breaks away from the rest of the UK if a no deal brexit happens and if the UK economy slides. Maybe NI decides to go back to the EU, but only as an independent country, because a United Ireland would be too difficult a pill for a lot of them to swallow.
Rory mcllroy is an interesting view into successful Catholics in NI (watch the thread catch fire) he has no interest in the ROI, he just wants to be a citizen of NI. I'd say a lot of the people there think the same

There isn't a single political voice looking for an 'independent NI'.

But who's looking for for a UI and who's looking for brexit

FrancieBrady

ltd440 wrote: »

But who's looking for for a UI and who's looking for brexit

What?

ltd440

20-30 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ltd440 wrote: »

But who's looking for for a UI and who's looking for brexit

What?

I mean what percentage of the population of NI are actually looking for a United Ireland or a brexit solution, I'm guessing not many and that is the only end games on this thread

Fionn1952

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

The agenda here is quite phenomenal. And it's comical that you choose to look down on the South regarding, of all things, emigration. Not once had you the integrity to admit that in the North the central way in which the unionist régime kept the nationalist population in check was by making sure their areas had far higher unemployment and thus far higher emigration rates. Between 1937 and 1961, for instance, Catholics represented one-third of the population but 55-58% of the emigrants (Statistics here). In other words, emigration from Catholic areas of the North was over twice the rate it was from unionist areas. There were in reality two very different economic worlds and for you to come on here without making that very real distinction as you attempt to laud the Northern economy speaks volumes more about your "British Isles", "Home Countries", all-roads-lead-to-England inferiority complex.




Ever hear of the 'West of the Bann policy'? The Benson Report? Mathew Report? Wilson Report or any of the rest of the economic policies which actually planned that economic development for the unionist areas east of the Bann, while further denuding the nationalist-dominated west of its already sparse infrastructure such as the Derry train service? The Stormont government was acutely aware of economic trends so much so that all of these reports were strongly influenced by the success of the First Programme for Economic Expansion (1958-63) in Dublin, which is somewhat ironic given the impression you're giving here that NI was some forward-thinking, thriving economic centre (rather than a heavily subsidised region that would have firmly sunk without wealth transfers from London).

In reality, NI was in enormous decline after WWII so much so that it also copied much of the IDA's policy of attracting foreign investment to replace the traditional shipping and linen industries. There was also massive unemployment in agriculture in these years, a trend of mechanisation leading to greater unemployment which had been clear in the western world since at least the agricultural revolution in the 18th century and the Luddites in early 19th-century England.

They didn't "spot" these trends? In the real world, they astutely spotted those areas which had nationalist majorities that had to be kept in check and the residents incentivised to emigrate. Starving nationalist areas, where the residents "bred like rabbits", of economic investment was an absolutely central economic and political plank of the entire Stormont régime to ensure their demographic majority. The whole state's existence not merely depended upon emigration (which is something than can be said about the Irish state), but it depended upon a particular ethno-sectarian type of emigration (which is something that cannot be said even by you about the Irish state). The nationalist population in the Six Counties would be incomparably greater today were it not for the very targeted economic policy of unionism to increase emigration from nationalist areas. They would have been a majority decades ago.

The governing Unionist régime was also more than acutely aware of the very thing (along with the transmission of US civil rights protests via televisions) which guaranteed that a civil rights' movement would emerge; the rising standard of education of nationalists. They tried to control this, most infamously via where they located the new university (Coleraine, in the unionist east) rather than in the most natural place, the second city of Derry, west of the Bann. Despite your contention of a superior Northern economy, in every single respect the North was at least as bad as the South; it was solely transfers from London which allowed it to appear more successful. Indeed, by 1962 the South's economy was firmly ahead of the North and much more modern. Anger at this economic decline in NI led to the Northern Ireland Labour Party receiving a whopping 15.8% of the vote in the 1962 Stormont election, leading to the final overthrow of Brookeborough 10 months later.

No doubt blanch is busy trying to slant his figures for a (I have to say) gullible Fionn. I did warn him.

Waiting for figures before making a statement in no way makes me gullible, Francie. I had my opinion that Blanch was not correct with his statement, but I'm not infallible, I'm always open to hearing new information and having my mind changed. I asked for the data, I'm perfectly capable of analysing data myself, I have done it on a daily basis for many years. What I don't do is presume the data is wrong before I see it.