What would Ireland be like if we'd stayed in the Union?

Snickers Man

murphaph wrote:

Come off it, everyone knows that Germany was developing weaponry in secret long before 1934 (starting tank development as early as 1920), indeed with the cooperation of the USSR where tanks were built and tested for Germany in great secrecy as it broke the treaty of Versailles! From here .

That same site reveals that Germany's army was restricted to 100,000 men as part of the Versailles settlement. And of course their tank development was secret. Do you think the British development of the Spitfire and radar was done openly? The fact is that whatever about the technical developments, the German army was only 100,000 strong in 1934. Thereafter it grew fiercely. But Britain's standing army was enormous too. The fact that it was spread around its vast empire doesn't change anything.

The BEF was tiny and poorly equipped and trained in comparison to the Wehrmacht! The size of the british empire is pretty irrelevant as there were a lot of parts of it where nobody would be willing to fight for Britain in a European war and even more of the empire where nobody even lived (Canada, Australia etc. are mostly empty!). Britain was simplt unprepared for war while germany had been studiously preparing for it for many years.

Like all great Empires Britain managed to devolved the task of fighting for it to elements of the people it controlled. The danger of this strategy is that sooner or later those people decide tofight on their own behalf rather than the Empire's. Britain was so weakened by its efforts in WWII that within 35 years, its vast empire had gone.

As for not willing to fight, some 60 per cent of the 'British' Army in Burma was Indian. A large part of its forces in the rest of Asia, and indeed in North Africa were Australian. And where would the RAF have been in 1940 without the likes of its leading aces 'Paddy' Finucane (Ireland) 'Sailor' Malan (South AFrica) and 'Johnny' Johnston (New Zealand). Not forgetting all those Polish squadrons who had the highest rate of kills in the Battle of Britain of all int he RAF.

the Germans were simply not obeying the treaty from almost the day they signed it!

They were dodging it where they could but developing weaponry is one thing. Deploying a massive army is quite another. German remilitarisation didn't begin until 1934.

All in all I am trying to convey the fact that if Britain had been defeated early in the war, as nearly happened, then Germany would have had little trouble defeating Soviet Russia, remembering that a cold winter and the meddling of Hitler helped save them from Nazism (though uncle joe was arguably worse than uncle Adolf!). The OP claimed the 'brits were useless' during WWII and this is simply not true.

The person we need to thank most for defeating the Germans is Generalissimo Franco of Spain. He kept Spain out of the war despite the fact that he had a large mobilised army (the Spanish Civil War was still going on in 1939); he owed the Germans big time for all the help they had given him;and he could have swatted the overstretched Brits out of Gibraltar any time he wanted. Especially if the Germans and Italians had backed him. But he didn't.

Why ever not?

Think about it: if the Axis controlled Gibraltar, Egypt could not have been reinforced or resupplied from the West. The British would have had to sail around South Africa and resupply via the Red Sea. Their Armies in Africa would have been cut to pieces.

Whatever else Franco did, and he wasn't the kindest of men, history owes him a debt for keeping Hitler at arm's length.

KieranusTyranus

Thank God we got out with full independence. The British would never have given us home rule anyway. When did they ever live up to there promises?
Im saying this as someone whose great grandfather fought in the east mayo brigade during the war.

robinph

KieranusTyranus wrote:

When did they ever live up to there promises?

I belive that India had been promissed independence for after the end of the war, and they didn't even have to fight the British inorder to get that deal.

foxybrowne

Ireland would be boring

murphaph

We'd be flying the St. Patrick's Saltire over Landsdowne Road tomorrow too, no tricolour!

I have a feeling that if BAA owned DUB that there would be a rail connection to it already.

A Dub in Glasgo

BAA own Glasgow & Edinburgh Airports and there are no rail connections to them!

sceptre

robinph wrote:

I belive that India had been promissed independence for after the end of the war, and they didn't even have to fight the British inorder to get that deal.

I'm unaware of any such promise. More to the point, the main movememt didn't fight because Gandhi, the INC and the QIM decided that was the way they were going to do things, Netaji and the INA did fight because they decided that was the way they were going to do things, the Marquess of Linlithgow as viceroy declared India's entry into the war without conferring with any of the regional governments as he was required to do, dialogue on independence didn't start till after Labour were returned to government after the war and I can't even see a window of opportunity for such a promise let alone be aware of an actual commitment.

Even the 1926 Balfour Declaration might be a better example, though there are of course numerous relevant and valid small examples that anyone with any half-useful knowledge of history beyond their kitchen window would be aware of.

This thread appears to be flopping with some significant lack of grace towards a rather large tangent. I'd like to politely remind everyone of what the thread is apparently about and you can flick back to the first post to do that.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

BAA own Glasgow & Edinburgh Airports and there are no rail connections to them!

I knew someone would write that I've only been to Glasgow and it's tiny compared to DUB, so maybe that's why. I can't speak for Edinburgh having never flown in or out of it but a heavy rail diversion of the East Coast Mainline is currently proposed.

DUB is only a couple of miles across greenfields to the DART line. We should have connected it a long time ago ourselves, I just have a feeling BAA would have already done so as they contributed towards the Picadilly Extension to LHR.

Snickers Man

murphaph wrote:

I have a feeling that if BAA owned DUB that there would be a rail connection to it already.

Now that must qualify for a 'Beverage through the Nose' Award for this year. What's your evidence for this? Heathrow!!!!!

That has only recently (ie within the last 10 years) had a rail link and it only goes to West London, not the centre. Prior to that, there was a god-awful tube link which took 45minutes at least from the city centre. It was crowded and there was nowhere to put your bags. It was a horrible horrible experience. And as for coming back.....

You could drive. But then the M4/M25 junction which you have to negotiate is the most horrible junction in the world. It makes the Red Cow at 9:am look like a thoroughfare.

you might say 'aha, but at least Heathrow has its fast rail connection now!' Which is true, but it's only any use if you live in West London and there were Four, count 'em four, airport terminals built before it was. And it's bloody miles away too. Dublin Airport is near hte city centre. The Aircoach link is bloody marvellous if you live near one of the big hotels, which I do. And the bus that takes you to the Dart station on a flat-rate ticket that takes you to any station served by the DART is great too. (When the DART is running that is)

Heathrow is the armpit of England. One should avoid it like the sweaty tangled mess it is.

murphaph

Eh, this is a hypothetical thread. Gatwick and Stansted are also BAA and are linked by rail to the capital. Isn't Manchester a BAA airport as well? They have a heavy rail link too.

Anyway, the AerDart (I think that's the one you were talking about?) has ceased business. They blamed the weekend DART closures.

Ohhh, there'd be no Raidio Telifis Eireann! It'd be BBC Ireland, how weird does that sound?!

Diorraing

There would be no reason for Fine Gael to exist

murphaph

Diorraing wrote:

There would be no reason for Fine Gael to exist

Or quite a few others perhaps! It is not unreasonable to assume that FF would not exist either, though as in Scotland (SNP) and Wales (Plaid Cymru) you'd almost certainly have one nationalist party, though perhaps not a republican one. The plethora of parties in NI would likely not exist at all and those with a unionist persuasion (who would possibly include many more catholics than people think) would tend to vote conservative (Michael McDowell could be fcukin home secretary-imagine that!).

AerLingus would not exist either and we wouldn't use New World road signage (the yellow diamonds). We'd also likely still be using imperial measures for the roads system.

bonkey

Is it just me or has no-one considered that there would have been a continued 32-county "terrorism for independance" campaign, rather than just a 6-county one, and that the knock-on from this would probably be the biggest "shaping" factor of this theoretical situation.

jc

ambro25

Oh, but to think of whatever Maggie could have done with Ireland in the eighties

murphaph

bonkey wrote:

Is it just me or has no-one considered that there would have been a continued 32-county "terrorism for independance" campaign, rather than just a 6-county one, and that the knock-on from this would probably be the biggest "shaping" factor of this theoretical situation.

jc

Indeed, it's possible that there would have been. Didn't the 'terrorist campaign' only start gaining real ground when Home Rule was set to one side for the duration of WWI? I don't think most Irish people have or ever had a stomach for terrorism, and if Home Rule had been granted it possibly would have been seen as terrorism whereas most of us consider the 1916 guys to be 'freedom fighters' even though many ordinary joes at the time wanted nothing to do with them.

I doubt a campaign of significane would still be running today-we would be of little interest to Britain and it's likely a referendum or 4 would have been held sonce 1922 to poll the electorate's appetite for independence beyond devolved government. The thing is-Scotland has never gone down this road in a cancerted way since they united crowns with England & Wales in (was it?) 1703.

Good point though.

murphaph

ambro25 wrote:

Oh, but to think of whatever Maggie could have done with Ireland in the eighties

'With' or to Ireland? Seriously though, I think she may have at least dealt with the CIE unions so they wouldn't be strangling the company to this day, though she may have done a lot more harm than good to Ireland. I always thought that Ireland would have been a Labour stronghold, like Scotland, so there may have been no Iron Lady in No.10?

sceptre

murphaph wrote:

'With' or to Ireland? Seriously though, I think she may have at least dealt with the CIE unions

What is this "CIE" you speak of? British Rail, my lad. We'd now have two or perhaps three companies, all with silly names, running rail here. They still wouldn't arrive on time but there's a half chance that Spencer Dock would have been developed a few years back. Of course Connolly could have turned into a mini-Clapham Junction nightmare too.

murphaph

sceptre wrote:

What is this "CIE" you speak of? British Rail, my lad.

Ooops, silly me! I wonder would it have been called BR, or would they have done a 'scotrail' on us-possibly being called Irish Rail!

Just thinking for a moment-I reckon one huge difference would be in education. We'd have no Leaving Cert and Irish wouldn't be compulsory (neither would maths or english for that matter!).

I think if we were using the UCAS that we'd see many more students travelling between the two islands and from north to south and vice-versa.

hawkmoon269

I think we would almost certainly be worse off, at least economically.

We would be viewed as just another a region of the UK, probably one of the less economically successful ones. We would probably be much more dependent on agriculture than we are now, given that in order to get industries started here, significant government funding was given via the IDA, a policy which Thatcher would definitely not have signed off on, given her disapproval of government support for industry.

We would have probably got a national assembly at the same time the Scots and Welsh did.

We would probably not have the IFSC, as the powers that be in London would surely not have given approval to a scheme which could have taken business from the City of London.

On the other hand, I think our road network and rail systems and health systems would probably be somewhat better.

As regards WW2, as another poster said I don't think the Swiss beat themselves up over staying neutral, and I don't think we should either.

That said, I respect the sacrifice of those Irishmen who choose to fight the Nazis.

democrates

bonkey wrote:

Is it just me or has no-one considered that there would have been a continued 32-county "terrorism for independance" campaign, rather than just a 6-county one, and that the knock-on from this would probably be the biggest "shaping" factor of this theoretical situation.

jc

Exactly what I was thinking. The 'what if' theorising is interesting, but requires you to assume that nationalism would cease to work effectively and never achive more than a sequence of 'cabbage patch' risings.

Whatever alternative scenario might have arisen for England would have simply moved the goal posts, but would not reduced the attraction of the goal for idealistic nationalists. Kevin Barry and the heroes of '16 showed how easy it was to ignite the sleeping masses.

While we're theorising, would it not be possible that with more time we might have achieved full independance for the 32 counties? And then would we have had Northern seperatists waging a campaign against the South ever since?

Did the English establishment have some strategic interest in keeping NI or were the wishes of Loyalists simply used as an excuse to give the poison pill of division to a territory that had met with their displeasure for daring to seek independance? Maybe that's not fair and their record in setting the conditions upon departure from former territories has mostly allowed peace to flourish where it could, you can't blame them if there are factions waiting to fight once the occupying power left. But there's the issue of whether the particular lines they've chosen to draw on maps were designed to give peace a chance or to keep a region unsettled and easier to manipulate...

murphaph

democrates wrote:

Did the English establishment have some strategic interest in keeping NI or were the wishes of Loyalists simply used as an excuse to give the poison pill of division to a territory that had met with their displeasure for daring to seek independance?

I reckon that one of the biggest reasons that the british government allowed partition (on wasn't it the 4th attempt at a Home Rule bill?-the Lords kept shooting it down) is because a huge 'moral' debt was owed to Ulstermen (read protestant unionists) who were, as members of the 36th Ulster Division (mostly made up of UVF men) basically wiped out at the Somme.

I'm sure this played some part in the granting of exclusion from Home Rule for what was to become Northern Ireland.

Elmo

I think the First Home Rule bill would have to have been passed, in which case we would have a healthy relationship with The Unionist in the North.

We would be part of the common wealth. Have suffered because of the war. Have suffered under Maggie Tatcher who would have had some help from Gareth Fitzgerald and Charie Haughey (Leaders of SINN FEIN )

There would be no such thing as the SDLP (They would be part of the Labour Party)

The PDs would be part of UKIP :rolleyes:

The Greens would be the Greens

and The Socialist would be Joe Higgins

democrates

Elmo wrote:

I think the First Home Rule bill would have to have been passed, in which case we would have a healthy relationship with The Unionist in the North.

Maybe you're right, and with greater clout in London we could have prevented gerrymandering in NI and the consequent civil rights injustices that have been suffered.

It's an interesting thread overall, there are many paths to peace and to strife, and I've sometimes wondered if the IRA hadn't begun it's terrorist campaign in the 1970's could greater forces of international pressure have been brought to bear to acheive peace and justice in NI.

Once you start bombing you squander your 'look at the injustices we innocents are suffering' card, you're now seen as part of the problem by most of the rest of the world, and that problem is ten times worse now because those who you need to live in harmony with have been turned from selfish oppressors on the diplomatic back foot into bitter vengeful enemies who can claim justified retaliation. Same theme recurs in Kashmir, Spains Basque region, Palestine and so on.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

Schizophrenia?

Snickers Man

murphaph wrote:

Anyway, the AerDart (I think that's the one you were talking about?) has ceased business. They blamed the weekend DART closures.

Well given the amount of air traffic at weekends, I reckon that's a plausible enough excuse.

murphaph wrote:

Ohhh, there'd be no Raidio Telifis Eireann! It'd be BBC Ireland, how weird does that sound?!

Not quite as weird as BBC Northern Ireland, which does exist.

LordSutch

A very interestin theory indeed (the South still in the UK), firstly I would imagine that from the 1920's to the late 80's Ireland would have been much better off and with the NHS + some serious world clout (Being part of the UK) I also suspect that the the Second City of Empire (Dublin) would have an Underground "Tube" system, Nelsons Pillar would still be there for tourists to climb, the Liffey would be full of tourist boats, the Royal Mail would deliver Two Posts daily, there would have been No Trubles in the North (3.5K lives saved) etc, etc, etc ....................
Oh My God its starting to sound pretty Good - if only

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

A very interestin theory indeed (the South still in the UK), firstly I would imagine that from the 1920's to the late 80's Ireland would have been much better off and with the NHS + some serious world clout (Being part of the UK)

I also suspect that the the Second City of Empire (Dublin) would have an Underground "Tube" system, Nelsons Pillar would still be there for tourists to climb, the Liffey would be full of tourist boats, the Royal Mail would deliver Two Posts daily, there would have been No Trubles in the North (3.5K lives saved) etc, etc, etc ....................
Oh My God its starting to sound pretty Good - if only

Yeah, i mean considering that in 1911 the "2nd city" of the empire had a population of 305,000 and 118,000 (39% of the people) lived in tenements described as being unfit for human habitation, and had the worst rate of death rates (from living conditions and the high infant mortality) in europe (worse than calcutta), sure things could have only gotten better!!and if dublin, the "2nd city" of the empire, looked this great, imagine how the other towns of ireland were:)

also, we could have been bombed by the germans, and when you consider the meagre defence NI had (only 22 anti-aircraft guns and no searchlights during the blitz), i think we would have been in a very bad way whenever the germans decided to bomb us.

and nelsons pillar would still be standing too.

however, the health service would have been much better , after the welfare state.

whether or not the troubles would have happened (or some other violence in their place) is debatable.

simply put though, im irish, not british, and i dont take my irish citizenship and irish nationality for granted nor do i regard it as simply meaning i have a passport with a harp on the front, so i wouldnt like the country (or should i say province?) i was living in right now had we stayed in the union.

jrey1981

It is possible the education system would have declined quicker than it has done. Many agree that the Junior Cert is nearer to A Levels than GCSE and that the Leaving is nearer International Baccalaureate standard...

this would possibly mean we would not have as high employment as we do now.

Definitely would have better roads - anyone who has been across the border knows that you know when you have crossed it when the road surface stops being so full of potholes.

Possibly slightly better railways.

Proper money rather than this Euro monopoly money.

Possibly the country would have developed infrastructure and become more urbanised sooner than it has done...

The driftnets would have gone a long time ago meaning that the salmon population in our rivers might be greater

Possibly lakes and rivers would be cleaner than they are at the moment due to better adherence to environmental regulations

We might have better phone lines meaning that I could get broadband

lazydaisy

Just to add to the above.... legalised abortion, divorce without waiting four years, contraception would have been available before Virgin Megastore started selling condoms (1990?) Much less clerical power. No industrial schools? Women civil servants wouldn't have had to give up their jobs once they got married up to the 1970s (?).