Tomorrows Financial Times article slams Ireland's failed state as warning to Scots

Kermit.de.frog

wow, just wow!

Put "Ireland FT" in to google search and you can read the full article

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cd89f3f0-d08b-11e3-9a81-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30WTOw3Rk

A lot of truth in it in fairness but it's also a ruthless attack.


I think we, in the Republic of Ireland, will be seeing more of this in the run up to Scottish independence.

That is a horrible article that will be in the FT later today. Author has an Irish name funnily enough.

We do have one good historical model of what it is like to carve out a nationalist state from within the political union of the UK but it is not one the SNP is keen to cite.

For Ireland’s nationalist leaders Padraig Pearse and Eamon de Valera, nationhood could be hewed out in blood and rebellion. But the Irish Free State that arose in the 1920s was a parochial disaster – a backward step even from English rule, which was far from benign

...

Single-party misrule was to last for decades. Economic fortunes sank. Irish Taoiseachs – prime ministers – such as Charles Haughey almost openly looted the state’s treasuries. Far from being economically independent, the Irish punt was slave-pegged to the English pound. In all but name Ireland remained an economic vassal of the UK Treasury.

Lapin

They're a clever bunch that FT crowd.

Getting Saturday's paper out on a Friday !

Lapin

As for the article itself. I can find very little to disagree with in it.

Kermit.de.frog

Lapin wrote: »

They're a clever bunch that FT crowd.

Getting Saturday's paper out on a Friday !

It's actually in Saturday's paper. Top right hand corner of front page made me curious. They want to troll us clearly.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

don't feed the trolls. even when they're writing in the FT

EDIT:
screenshot of the article if you're not bothered creating an FT account

http://i.imgur.com/sOofgtk.png

Lapin

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Author has an Irish name funnily enough.

Kevin Toolis was born in Edinburgh of Irish parents. He attended Edinburgh University and has lived in San Francisco, Namibia and London. He has written for the New York Times magazine, the Observer and the Guardian and screenplays for Universal Pictures. He now (2002) lives in London. He wrote the book Rebel Heart on the IRA.


Source

Kermit.de.frog

The premise seems to be we made a mistake and want to return. It's far from the first time since this crisis I have seen that in British newspapers. Perhaps they genuinely believe that narrative.

Kermit.de.frog

Lapin wrote: »

Kevin Toolis was born in Edinburgh of Irish parents. He attended Edinburgh University and has lived in San Francisco, Namibia and London. He has written for the New York Times magazine, the Observer and the Guardian and screenplays for Universal Pictures. He now (2002) lives in London. He wrote the book Rebel Heart on the IRA.


Source

But never lived in Ireland :rolleyes: Not uncommon for mouth pieces.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The premise seems to be we made a mistake and want to return. It's far from the first time since this crisis I have seen that in British newspapers. Perhaps they genuinely believe that narrative.

I didn't pick up that from it, just an account of our early financial woes and the difficulties faced and mistakes made. Remember most people in Britain would be completely ignorant of Irish history, especially post Independence.

minidazzler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The premise seems to be we made a mistake and want to return. It's far from the first time since this crisis I have seen that in British newspapers. Perhaps they genuinely believe that narrative.

That's not my reading of it at all....

Nothing about wanting to return, just that it took a hundred years to get some semblance of true "independence" Funnily enough, we're only more independent of the UK since we took the Euro and became dependent on Europe

pO1Neil

"Scots should recall poverty of Irish Free State". Should also recall the poverty of the famine in the 1840's or the slums of Dublin in 1900's when it was apart of the Union, which was a reason the 1913 lockout occurred.

suicide_circus

Kind of hard to argue with a lot of what he says but at the same time I am not sorry we left the union and it was the right thing ro do at the time.

Adyx

suicide_circus wrote: »

Kind of hard to argue with a lot of what he says but at the same time I am not sorry we left the union and it was the right thing ro do at the time.

Right thing to do, certainly. But I don't think it was the right time. Obviously hindsight is great but I think we would have been better off then and now if the break with the union had came later.

suicide_circus

Adyx wrote: »

Right thing to do, certainly. But I don't think it was the right time. Obviously hindsight is great but I think we would have been better off then and now if the break with the union had came later.

Look those lads were sick of being ridden by a foreign monarch, 20/20 hindsight is great as you say, thrte is rarely a perfect time to revolt, there is always unfortunate fallout.

Merkin

Adyx wrote: »

Right thing to do, certainly. But I don't think it was the right time. Obviously hindsight is great but I think we would have been better off then and now if the break with the union had came later.

I think after centuries of oppression it was a case of now or never.

The FT piece is fine, it's factual and gives a stark insight into what the newly founded Republic was like, I have no issue with it.

Duckworth_Luas

Northern Ireland remained in the UK and look at the success story that has been! So Scotland, stay in the union and one day you may aspire to being the new Northern Ireland.

Ridiculous article. The No campaign must be getting worried!

LordSutch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

For Ireland’s nationalist leaders Padraig Pearse and Eamon de Valera, nationhood could be hewed out in blood and rebellion. But the Irish Free State that arose in the 1920s was a parochial disaster – a backward step even from English rule, which was far from benign ...

Very true indeed, right up until the 1980s.
It did indeed take us many decades to arrive to the modern 'Multi National driven' Ireland we live in today.

Troy Lumberjack

"Toolis is a tool" says "The Son". Dreadful stuff. All vaguely true, but but you could slate any nation if you produced a focussed article with only one agenda. He could at least have mentioned hurling, or O'Bama, or somthing diddly-eidle, the Scots will be shaking in their sporrans after reading that, either with laughter or fear, not too sure which.

hfallada

Irish was an underdeveloped country after I independence. It was 40% employed in agriculture and industry was non existent because was the protectionist policies of the government. But when with our economy not in the best of state. Ireland overall is doing better than most of the UK .

Outside London most of the UK is a kip. All former industrial towns like Birmingham or Newcastle make Dublin look like Monaco. Irish incomes are still higher than the UK. And the UK sees Ireland as the biggest threat for foreign investment.

comongethappy

Well the British media must be pooping themselves at the thought of a 'Yes' vote.

Pretty sure the FT have hailed Ireland in the past as the model to follow.

moxin

Religion and its nutty followers took over in 1922, that's the root cause of why we didn't develop. Scotland does not have the same religious fundamentalists trying to rule the country now, he is comparing apples and oranges.

Irish Halo

In all but name Ireland remained an economic vassal of the UK Treasury.

To be fair to this point the UK was our biggest trading partner (apparently it's now the US?) and the Irish pound was pegged to the British pound 1:1 until 1979, which would leave us very constrained by the UK. Joining the EU is what has lessened this influence (it was one of the reasons we broke from the 1:1 pegging).

There are 3 problems for Scotland:
* They will keep the pound but economic decisions for this currency will be made in Westminster and the Scottish will have little or no say in this. (similar to Ireland for almost 60 years when we pegged to the pound)
* Their membership of the EU is not a foregone conclusion and will likely be resisted by nations with similar separatist movements (e.g Spain)
* Even if eventually let into the EU (it will be years before let in) taking the euro would be difficult as the economic rules will be more strictly enforced after the Greek fiasco (Greece should have not be eligible to take the euro).

Calibos

The Protestant establishment were correct in their warnings back then. "Home Rule is Rome Rule" did turn out to be true. It's no coincidence that our fortunes started improving as the churches grip loosened from the 60's and accelerated onwards.

Ironically it is the northern Protestants that are more fundamentalist in their religious outlook nowadays.

What heavy industry can you poach away from its sources of Coal and Steel and nascent electrification to an island on the western edge of Europe in 1922?

Transport infrastructures, communications etc make this not as big a problem for scots looking for investment in industry in 2014 than it was for us in 1922.

Dempsey

The article has a lot of merit. Becoming a republic had repercussions that still affect the country today, e.g. the civil war, relinquishing of the northern 6 counties.

When you read the history books, its completely understandable why we forced our way out of the empire and only an idiot would suggest going back would be a good idea

The Pheasant2

All one has to do is compare the republic with Wales or Scotland to see that leaving the UK was the right choice.

Even within England, London apart, their other "great" cities, Manchester, Liverpool et al are kips.

Davarus Walrus

The Transformation Of Ireland 1900-2000 by Professor Diarmaid Ferriter gives a fair and nuanced account of both the social and economic conditions present in Ireland before and after independence. To say that every social ill present in Ireland was as a result of Catholic influence is a very simplistic view of the matter. Many other factors were at play.

Few things can so quickly turn the Internet cranks away from giving out about the state of this country as a man from Perfidious Albion giving out about Ireland.

steddyeddy

Actually used to read that paper until it resorted to trolling. Think I'll stick to New Scientist.

razorblunt

I tell you what, I'd rather we make our own mistakes than have the British make them for us, that's for damn sure.

I'm aware of the trivial use of "we", with me being an Irishman in Scotland!

suicide_circus

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

The Transformation Of Ireland 1900-2000 by Professor Diarmaid Ferriter gives a fair and nuanced account of both the social and economic conditions present in Ireland before and after independence. To say that every social ill present in Ireland was as a result of Catholic influence is a very simplistic view of the matter. Many other factors were at play.

Few things can so quickly turn the Internet cranks away from giving out about the state of this country as a man from Perfidious Albion giving out about Ireland.

Ive a lot of time for ferriter, wish he had worked in the college I went to.

jank

moxin wrote: »

Religion and its nutty followers took over in 1922, that's the root cause of why we didn't develop. .

How did religion make Ireland an economic backwater?

Ireland was poor and under developed up until recently due to successive government failures to liberalise the economy, protectionism, trade wars, its failure to open up trade with its neighbours, an emphasis on building an agrarian soceity and high taxes. These have NOTHING to do with religion.

elefant

Surely this is a grossly simplistic comparison of independence.
Ireland became independent in the 1920's, so something very similar is bound to happen to Scotland in 2014? Other than the fact that Ireland in 1922 and Scotland in 2014 are under British rule, what other similarities are there between the two? In the early 20th century most of the Irish population worked in agriculture, were in relative poverty and had next to no access to any modern technology or even communication outside local communities. Scotland is fully developed, wealthy country in the 21st century.

I'm sure if Scottish independence was won by a large armed conflict against the English the Scots might rightly be worried though. That would be a little bit more of a fair comparison.

carpejugulum

Well Ireland was pretty much a kip until the 90s. But so was the rest of the world in fairness.

pO1Neil wrote: »

"Scots should recall poverty of Irish Free State". Should also recall the poverty of the famine in the 1840's or the slums of Dublin in 1900's when it was apart of the Union.

Poor people in England weren't better off than poor people in Ireland. It wasn't about nationality.

Beefy78

elefant wrote: »

Ireland became independent in the 1920's, so something very similar is bound to happen to Scotland in 2014? Other than the fact that Ireland in 1922 and Scotland in 2014 are under British rule,

Scotland isn't "under British rule". It is Britain.

RobbingBandit

IMO De Valera pretty much shut up shop here as far as trade was concerned, there are no backwards self serving scots around to do that in this day and age.

doncarlos

Thing that annoys me most about that article is "400 years of colonisation and cultural exchange" makes it sound like we were partners rather than a country being raped and pillaged. 80 years of hardship was worth the struggle to remove the English boot from Irish necks.

crockholm

The article just feeds into the canard believed by some of our neighbours that the Empire was really just a benevolent society that helped the natives see the error of their ways.Hmmm....Yes....Quite.

The right of self-determination trumps any scraps and Crumbs that may have been thrown our way by London.

There can be no denying the poverty and early setbacks following independence,and equally no denying that the same poverty and emigration existed under dominion.

donegal__road

The Scots haven't given away their oil.

steddyeddy

Just read the article. OK lets take him seriously for a bit (ie lets assume he isn't a unionist) and look at his ideas.

Hypothesis: Ireland was better economically and socially under British rule
Refute: The famine. religious segregation, Dublin had a death rate the same as Calcutta at one point. Finally look at Northern Ireland as Ireland under British rule. It's an economic black hole that's plagued by bigotry and religious discrimination.

WesternZulu

It's amazing how the media is constantly pushing the NO vote.

From reading papers and watching TV over here in the UK you really get the sense that there is an underlying agenda in the media to as to why Scotland should not break away.

I have not read or seen one piece that has suggested why it may be advantageous to Scotland to break away.

The whole way it's negatively portrayed is completely unbalanced in my opinion.

strobe

While there were a fvck ton of problems with Ireland post independence, the majority of them existed under English rule. Some would say they were aggravated and let fester to the degree they did because of English rule. It wasn't the case that the treaty was signed, and the next day a wealthy successful Ireland went to the ****ter. It was already in the ****ter despite/because of/apart from a long period of British rule.

The majority of problems were inherited by the free state not created by it.

LordSutch

hfallada wrote: »

Outside London most of the UK is a kip.

Vacuous, ill informed, blinkered, claptrap of the highest order^

http://www.globalgrasshopper.com/destinations/uk/10-of-the-most-beautiful-places-to-visit-in-the-uk/

York, Bath, Enniskillen, Edinburgh . . . . . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011174/York-named-best-beautiful-British-city.html

Cool Mo D

It's a pretty misleading article, as far as the Scottish comparison goes. Modern Scotland is a wealthy, developed area that is not comparable to pre-independence Ireland.

After independence, Ireland was a poor and rural country. But this is no change from the situation under British rule. DeValeras protectionist economic policies and the Trade War also crippled Irelands economy.

But compare independent Ireland to Northern Ireland now. On independence, Northern Ireland was by far the richest part of the island. Now, it is the poorest, reliant on British support. Belfast was the most important industrial city on the island, now it trails behind Dublin and Cork. Ireland was the poorest part of the UK, now it is richer than anywhere in the UK besides the South East of Britain. Ireland is clearly a much better off country independent than it would have been under British rule.

Basically, the message for an independent Scotland should be to avoid the mistakes Ireland made just after independence, and it can reap the benefits of self determination.

osarusan

crockholm wrote: »

The article just feeds into the canard believed by some of our neighbours that the Empire was really just a benevolent society that helped the natives see the error of their ways.Hmmm....Yes....Quite.

Very start of the article describes British Rule as 'far from benign.'

My reading of the articles is that it is a warning not to be completely swept away by the romantic notion of independence unless the newly independent entity will have a plan in place for its prosperity.

Fratton Fred

doncarlos wrote: »

Thing that annoys me most about that article is "400 years of colonisation and cultural exchange" makes it sound like we were partners rather than a country being raped and pillaged. 80 years of hardship was worth the struggle to remove the English boot from Irish necks.

And used ever since by the political elite to repeatedly ride the Irish public rigid.

Shut up, don't complain, it was worse under the British.

stoneill

What? Eamonn DeVelera is the new Prime Minister of Scotland? Jasus - didn't see that coming.

Chips Lovell

There appears to be a fair number of people who're reading things into that article that simply aren't there. Criticising the failures of the Irish state in its first 70 years or so doesn't equate to praising all things UK.

Davarus Walrus

donegal__road wrote: »

The Scots haven't given away their oil.

Meanwhile the poor auld Plain People of Ireland have to watch as barrel after barrel of black gold is pumped onshore from the rich and shallow reserves off our coast by those evil Oil and Gas companies.

Luft Ballon

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

There appears to be a fair number of people who're reading things into that article that simply aren't there. Criticising the failures of the Irish state in its first 70 years or so doesn't equate to praising all things UK.

His premise is that Scotland will end up another failed state if it leaves the UK

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Wow , this article reminds me of another one I read recently by Sarah Dillon about how Ireland is a leech on the EU. These people are just jealous because this is a proud Christian country which tends to put a spanner in the works of the world elite eg. breaking away from the Union , vote on Lisbon exc. (:

Chips Lovell

I give up...

Kermit.de.frog

Luft Ballon wrote: »

His premise is that Scotland will end up another failed state if it leaves the UK

Ireland is not a failed state regardless how the article wants to portray it. Somalia is a failed state.