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

thegent

There’s a difference between voluntary and involuntary slavery, we only have ourselves to blame for giving the catholic church too much power but the English just took that power and our language etc etc… at least we get to control our taxes these days.

We may have had a better infrastructure earlier but I’d prefer to get ‘things’ a little later and be free rather than have ‘things’ earlier and be Londons bitch.

Don’t forget that the whole island would be crawling with marching Orangemen, In my opinion the overall situation on the island would be much worse for us if we had stayed in the equality driven English union.

simu

lazydaisy wrote:

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 (?).

I don't think Ireland would have been all that much more liberal actually. I mean, many of the Protestants in the north are extremely conservative as well so I think that abortion might have remained illegal on the whole island.

Maskhadov

The British and IRish governments lauched a new website to study and help figure out the complex relationship between ireland and england. You can see it here

http://www.britainandireland.org

rsynnott

We probably wouldn't have the relics of JC McQuaid Uber Alles. And those filthy homosexuals wouldn't have been oppressed as much.

Maskhadov

we would be protestised imo. Most people in power and authority would still be god fearing protestants and catholic people would feel like second class citizens.

rsynnott

Maskhadov wrote:

we would be protestised imo. Most people in power and authority would still be god fearing protestants and catholic people would feel like second class citizens.

Much like in modern Britain, you mean?

Snickers Man

murphaph wrote:

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.

And what about the debt of honour they owed the 10th Irish Division, recruited almost exclusively from the south and which got shipped out to Gallipoli and thence to fight the Bulgarians in the middle of winter in their summer gear? Not to mention all the other Irish regiments that were cobbled together and slaughtered at the Somme?

I lost three great uncles between all that lot. They owe me big.

Of course the British, and for that matter any colonial power, always encourage their minions to look on such losses as what an accountant would call sunk cost, as opposed to an investment in the future. In other words, forget about it.

rsynnott

Snickers Man wrote:

I lost three great uncles between all that lot. They owe me big.

Erm, they owe your uncles, certainly. What they owe you is questionable.

murphaph

Snickers Man wrote:

And what about the debt of honour they owed the 10th Irish Division, recruited almost exclusively from the south and which got shipped out to Gallipoli and thence to fight the Bulgarians in the middle of winter in their summer gear? Not to mention all the other Irish regiments that were cobbled together and slaughtered at the Somme?

I lost three great uncles between all that lot. They owe me big.

Erm, they granted home rule for the south where the 10th Irish mostly came from. They 'paid' their 'moral debt' to both 'sides' by partitioning the island, no

And as for them 'owing' you or your uncles, why do you think that? Your uncles fought for their country (at the time the UK), like any scotsman or englishman. If you fought for Ireland today would you feel that your country 'owed' you something for it? Isn't that what mercenaries do?

Snickers Man

rsynnott wrote:

Erm, they owe your uncles, certainly. What they owe you is questionable.

Given that my great uncles were no longer able to collect the debt, they owe me as much as they owed the survivors of the 36th Ulster Division. And lets face it, the survivors are the ones who call in the debts.

But my main point is that the 'debtor' doesn't see such sacrifice as a debt at all.

So it's a nothing argument.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

Erm, they granted home rule for the south where the 10th Irish mostly came from. They 'paid' their 'moral debt' to both 'sides' by partitioning the island, no

And as for them 'owing' you or your uncles, why do you think that? Your uncles fought for their country (at the time the UK), like any scotsman or englishman. If you fought for Ireland today would you feel that your country 'owed' you something for it? Isn't that what mercenaries do?

i doubt many irish nationalists fought because they wanted to show devotion and loyalty to the uk and the british monarch.

and the british government really let down the 420,000 nationalists who werent allowed to join the south in places like the nationalist counties of fermanagh and tyrone, or the nationalist cities of derry and newry for example

Maskhadov

rsynnott wrote:

Much like in modern Britain, you mean?

Exactly rsynnott, with those ethnic riots you see in England on the news the last few days. We would just be another ethnic minority in the United Kingdom living in poverty with a british government oblivous to the plight.

murphaph

Maskhadov wrote:

Exactly rsynnott, with those ethnic riots you see in England on the news the last few days. We would just be another ethnic minority in the United Kingdom living in poverty with a british government oblivous to the plight.

That opinion doesn't tally with the fact that the UK government subsidises the part of Ireland that's still in the UK to the tune of £4bn annually.

I believe that this whole sorry Ferns affair would have been properly dealt with if we were part of the UK. This wonderful little country of ours didn't do much for those litle kiddies that were tortured by the RC church while the state did fcuk all.

murphaph

Flex wrote:

and the british government really let down the 420,000 nationalists who werent allowed to join the south in places like the nationalist counties of fermanagh and tyrone, or the nationalist cities of derry and newry for example

I'm not doubting your figure (yet), but where does it come from? It seems like rather a large number to me for Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry City and Newry, especially when you take the unionists out of the figures. Remember; catholic != nationalist!! Interestingly-unionists believe that the british government really let down the unionists in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan and Dublin and surrounding counties! Same coin-different sides.

Snickers Man

Actually somebody made a good point back there that wasn't developed. (I think it might even have been Murphaph;) ) that Ireland would likely have been very Anti Tory and therefore they might have had real trouble getting elected.

So there would probably not have been a Thatcher revolution coz she'd never have got elected with such a big majority. Instead Britain would have remained a largely centrist nation with a huge consensus-based political establishment that would have had great difficulty dismantling the welfare state.

So we would have been a lot closer to Berlin than Boston after all.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

Interestingly-unionists believe that the british government really let down the unionists in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan and Dublin and surrounding counties! Same coin-different sides.

I doubt that very much considering that Ireland was partitioned by Britain in such a manner that it ensured there would be an inbuilt Unionist majority in the part that was retained in the UK. If Britain partitioned Ireland so that Ulster was part of the UK, there would not have been a majority in favour of being part of the UK.

The Unionists in Ireland were an affront to democracy in Ireland.

Maskhadov

murphaph wrote:

That opinion doesn't tally with the fact that the UK government subsidises the part of Ireland that's still in the UK to the tune of £4bn annually.

And its still not enough, there is still too much poverty in the north. Far less poverty down south and more wealth so how does that figure ?

Taxes are going up in the north anyway

murphaph

Maskhadov wrote:

And its still not enough, there is still too much poverty in the north. Far less poverty down south and more wealth so how does that figure ?

It's not enough because they blow so much on security, rather than just getting on. However-tell some old codger lying on a trolley in Beaumont A&E for 16 hours before admission to a ward that we're better off than the north with their 'terrible' NHS with their free (at the point of delivery) treatment and cheap prescriptions! I much prefer paying full whack to the pharmas for my drugs anyway :rolleyes:

Maskhadov wrote:

Taxes are going up in the north anyway

Good to see, they have had a free ride with rates in comparison to GB.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I doubt that very much considering that Ireland was partitioned by Britain in such a manner that it ensured there would be an inbuilt Unionist majority in the part that was retained in the UK. If Britain partitioned Ireland so that Ulster was part of the UK, there would not have been a majority in favour of being part of the UK.

The Covenant was 'Ulster's' remember. It was intended that the entire province of Ulster would resist Home Rule-many unionists never forgave Carson for 'selling out the unionists in the 3 southern counties', just like some never forgave Collins for 'selling out the nationalists in the 6 counties' etc.

deiseach

Had Home Rule been granted in 1914, Ulster Unionism would have unleashed a war on both Britain and the rest of Ireland that would have made all the actions that the IRA et al have every committed put together look like a couple of overpaid soccer pros going at it with their handbags. The British government would be faced with a) suppressing the revolt, b) forming an alliance with it or c) negotiating with it. Eventually, after many pompous rhetorical declarations from all sides and much slaughter as the numerically and militarially superior British forces tried to enforce policy a) or b) - in the light of the Curragh mutiny, I'd say it would be b) - they would have to admit defeat and thrash out an arrangement with the leaders of Irish Nationalism and Unionism. Nationalists, made extremely militant by the horrors of the Troubles (as the butchery of the post-1914 years would be euphemistically referred to) would insist on an independent Ireland. Unionism would reject his out of hand. The compromise would be partition - and life carries on . . .

Richard

netwhizkid wrote:

I wonder would we still speak English? I am enclined to think would we have maybe achieved full independence, Australia had the choice to vote for this in 1999 (i think) and they turned it down.

The Ozzies do have full independence. They just happen to share a Head of State with the UK, although Her Maj has no power over what happens in Australia. She isn't really treated like a Head of State these days - the Governor General tends to be. He, for example, opened the Olympics.

luckat

I've been thinking about this. What *would* Ireland be like?

* It would be an occupied country, with thousands of British troops in barracks in every town and city.

* The RIC, a heavily-armed and militarised police force, would be here rather than the Gardai.

* Top civil service jobs would be held by English people, and decisions on matters of national importance would be made in London.

* The Irish economy would be subsumed into the British economy, and all decisions on it would be for the convenience of Britain.

* We'd probably have a good railway system, because the railways were built to bring troops around the country fast (which is why railway stations in Ireland were generally built away from the centre of towns).

And so on through national life. Or provincial life, as it would be.

Richard

luckat wrote:

I've been thinking about this. What *would* Ireland be like?

* It would be an occupied country, with thousands of British troops in barracks in every town and city.

No it wouldn't be. It would be either through consent, or it wouldn't be part of the UK.

I don't think your other points are true either.

I don't think that anyone has got it completely right - either those who think it would be a good think to have a UK of GB and I or those who wouldn't. Below is my attempt, which may well be rubbish but I'll give it a go.

Basically if the Easter Rising hadn't happened there are three main possibilities:

1. UK containing Ireland ruled from Westminster with no devolution.

I think this is a premise that many people are basing their assumptions on. I think, however, that this is basically a non-starter. If no Home Rule has been delivered then there may well have been a Rising later and things may well have turned out similar to how they are now

2. UK containing Ireland which has been granted home rule.

Given that there would be a parliament in Dublin dominated by nationalists (though not republicans) there would presumably have been certain things such as increased use of Irish which would have happened anyway. It probably wouldn't have been used as much as it actually was. I'm not sure necessarily that things like the NHS would have been introduced. Northern Ireland was able to afford the NHS, but a deveolved all-Ireland, even within the UK might not have been able to.

Similarly, although the roads throughout Ireland may well have been better than they were, they may not have been good as Northern Ireland's roads were during its main motorway building period in the 60s.

Some placenames may have changed (if the parliament had the powers to) such as "King's County" and "Queen's County", but "Marybourough", "Kingstown" and "Queenstown" may have arranged. In fact, a place more likely to have had it name changed IMHO is Londonderry.

Depending on how profitable Ireland was, it may well have got full independence (as a whole) in the 60s though it may well have stayed in the Commonwealth.

I haven't touched on how the inclusion of Unionists would have affected the new devolved Ireland - that could well have affecting things and the friction between religions could concievable have caused a different type of civil war.

3. UK containing both Northern Ireland and "Southern Ireland", both of which have been granted Home Rule seperately.

Northern Ireland would probably have been the same as present. Southern Ireland may have been similar to Ireland in scenario 2 though it wouldn't have been as rich and wouldn't have had so many Unionists. It too may have got indepence in the 60s.


In none of these scenarios do I see all of Ireland in the UK today. The only way this could have happened is if Ireland had been treated differently since the Act of Union in 1801. I don't want to get on to the rights and wrongs of the thing but obviously the Famine is an issue. If that had been dealt with properly (and dealt with how it I suspect it might have been had it taken place primarily in Southern England) then more Irish might have viewed themselves to be British and that would have doused a lot of the nationalistic feelings.

Having said that, the Motorway building that took place in NI may not have happened to the same extent in Ireland even if this did happen. The motorway building only happened because Stormont spent so much on road. Westminster would not have spent so much on Irish roads, and the NI road budget was slashed when Westminster took over from Stormont.

Speaking personally, as somebody from NI I would like to see a united, devolved Ireland inside the UK. But that ain't going to happen any time soon...

catholicireland

.....very hypothetically, and please no stupid comments.....

Well, when you ask stupid questions....

catholicireland

catholicireland wrote:

Well, when you ask stupid questions....

Warning number two.
There will not be a third.

cal29

Hving read some of this thread it seems to me that the Pro Unionists who are posting here are overlooking the History of this islands relationship with Britain

The vast majority of this Island was completely neglected and abused by the British whilst they were here there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that if the 26 counties had not left the union in 1922 that there would have been suddenly a reversal of the previous 700 years of abuse and neglect and that we would all have been treated fairly they had 700 years to treat us fairly and never seemed inclined

On the point of the North having better roads health service etc the "loyal" people were always looked after




The desire for freedom was not created in 1916 it was already there and would have bubbled to the surface sooner or later



It should not be forgotten that the 1918 election was the first in Ireland under universal sufferage the people of Ireland had not voted before 1918

In 1910 the Irish Nationalist party only received 120,000 votes and returned 84 MPs
In 1918 it received 220,000 votes but was decimated at the polls only returning 7 MPs Sinn Fein recieved 476,000 votes



There was not just a sudden turn away from moderate nationalism the simple fact is that over half a million Irish people had not had a vote before 1918 when they could vote they voted to leave the union.
They had never been asked before and in the near 90 years since that election the vast majority of Irish People have not changed their mind about what Irelands position should be.

cal29

murphaph wrote:

I believe that this whole sorry Ferns affair would have been properly dealt with if we were part of the UK. This wonderful little country of ours didn't do much for those litle kiddies that were tortured by the RC church while the state did fcuk all.

That is one of the most ridicolous arguements put forward in support of your pro unionist agenda

Child abuse is not the preserve of Ireland nor of the Catholic church it happens in every country on this planet and children have been let down by their respective governments including the British Government in every country on this planet.

besides which the special position of the Catholic Church in this State that was formerly enjoyed by that church is in a very large part due to the British and their attempts to destroy the catholic religion in this Island which meant that Catholicism became synonymous with National Freedom it has taken us about 70 years to finally break that link but it is done now.

I dont know if it is just me but personally i find the subservient lackey atitude displayed on this thread by some people sickening attempts to link national freedom to child abuse is just a new low and fly in the face of the facts that clerical child abuse and cover ups also happened in the six counties and in the US for example perhaps the americans made a mistake breaking away from the brits as well

luckat

Richard wrote:

Speaking personally, as somebody from NI I would like to see a united, devolved Ireland inside the UK. But that ain't going to happen any time soon...

The "soon" can be edited out. Ireland is a different country than Britain. It is never going to be part of the UK. Forget that one, dear.

rsynnott

luckat wrote:

The "soon" can be edited out. Ireland is a different country than Britain. It is never going to be part of the UK. Forget that one, dear.

You never know... It might ultimately become an attractive alternative to being part of a federal Europe.

Richard

luckat wrote:

The "soon" can be edited out. Ireland is a different country than Britain. It is never going to be part of the UK. Forget that one, dear.

I'm not your dear, thank you.