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

murphaph

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

With all the talk on these boards of a United Ireland being on the horizon, it got me thinking, what would Ireland be like today if WWI hadn't happened (when it happened) and Home Rule had been passed in Westminster, returning a parliament to College Green perhaps?

I imagine Dublin would be a little different. There would have been no rising or civil war so there would be a fair few buildings around today that were destroyed in those events. I think Dublin might have gotten an Underground like London & Glasgow.

Nationally, I definitely believe there would be an inter-urban motorway in existence right now, dating from the 60's perhaps.

I am not sure if our economy would be doing as well as it is right now, but I believe we may have done better in the past and be on a fairly good standing right now, somewhere along the lines of how Scotland declined and is now seeing a resurgence.

We'd have an NHS of course and we'd still be using Sterling. The Union flag would still be flown, probably alongside the St. Patrick's Cross on public buildings.....and the pillar would probably still be there.

Any thoughts?

Would the troubles have happened if Home Rule had been applied to the whole island?

simu

Interesting. Your ideas sound about right to me. I heard an interesting lecture by Garret Fitzgerald this summer where he pointed out that if we hadn't gotten out when we did, we might never have because once the welfare state came in, leaving would mean a loss of all the associated benefits. Strange to think that, though!

Hmmm, I think we'd be a lot more anglicised, culturally speaking and would have had less success in the EU. On a more positive note, the Catholic Church would not have been so influential and many of the scandals of neglect and abuse in Church institutions might never have happened.

murphaph

murphaph wrote:

There would have been no rising or civil war so there would be a fair few buildings around today that were destroyed in those events.

German bombing in the 1940s may have been slightly more marked though...and we'd all be watching for Muslims right now...

CerebralCortex

Deleted User wrote:

German bombing in the 1940s may have been slightly more marked though...and we'd all be watching for Muslims right now...

Ireland could have even provided more space for the RAF, and the Royal Navy thus giving more of an advantage to the British over the German force meaning a quicker end to World War 2. What with all the extra men and resources Ireland would have provided it would have to have had made a difference.

simu

No civil war! Therefore no civil war politics! Hard to imagine Ireland without that!

Think of all the Eurovisions we'd lose.

murphaph

I doubt Dublin would have seen a lot of bombing to be honest. We didn't bild ships like Belfast did. Belfast was much more industrialised and would have always been the main target of german bombing IMO.

The welfare state idea is very interesting.

CerebralCortex

Deleted User wrote:

Think of all the Eurovisions we'd lose.

Who cares?

CerebralCortex

CerebralCortex wrote:

Who cares?

It was a joke...

A Dub in Glasgo

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

It would be united and all those folk who live in the Republic who view their fellow countrymen in two thrids of Ulster as foreign would be confused

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It would be united and all those folk who live in the Republic who view their fellow countrymen in two thrids of Ulster as foreign would be confused

Why? We'd all hold a UK of GB & I passport

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I have had a completely different life growing up within one of the most neglected areas of Dublin compared to other areas. Should I regard the people who have different experiences to me in my own country as foreign?

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Should I regard the people who have different experiences to me in my own country as foreign?

Nope. People who have different experiences in another country? Different story...

murphaph

and the next obvious comment is; I've had similar experiences to a bloke in New Zealand, should I regard him as irish?

To drag this back on topic, I think we'd have a better rail service between the big towns and cities and I think our population would be quite a bit larger than it is now. We'd also likely have more 2nd and 3rd generation minorities living here.

ADIG,I think he might have been referring to postage stamps, non obligatory Irish in schools,sterling bank notes,English road signs, phones and TV channels,the NHS, and a myriad of other things.

His point is flawed I think though to the extent that as it stands the GAA and Irish culture is pervasive among nationalists in the North.
They are to all intents and purposes more Irish than we are down south.

It's a different story with unionists though and there in lies the problem, theres a million or so of them and what effect they would have on the structure and society of a UI is unknown but it would be significant.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

Nope. People who have different experiences in another country? Different story...

Comes down to what you call your own country.... You: 26 county Republic of Ireland, me: 32 county Ireland. You see the Irishmen in two thirds of Ulster as foreign... I do not. I seriously doubt your mind will ever see the two thirds Ulster as nothing other than foreign irrespective of the status of Ireland.

Hydroquinone

Earthman wrote:

His point is flawed I think though to the extent that as it stands the GAA and Irish culture is pervasive among nationalists in the North.
They are to all intents and purposes more Irish than we are down south.

That's the whole point, though, isn't it? They are only "more Irish" than us because the border is there, encouraging those of a Nationalistic persuasion to be even more Nationalistic, because they had something to fight against. If the whole island had remained in the UK, and the border had never been there, who is to say what we'd be like?
Interesting question.
Are the Welsh any less Welsh because they are also British? Are the Scots any less Scottish because they are British? Are the movements for devolution from London in those countries driven by what they've seen us do?

biko

Well, we would have remained a milking cow of the British empire. Until the next kind of rising... Don't forget 1798 and others

murphaph

biko wrote:

Well, we would have remained a milking cow of the British empire.

<is minded to think how B&Q, Boots, Next, Burton, Clarks, Penneys (Primark), Debenhams, HMV, Virgin, Tesco, Carphone Warehouse, Kwik-Fit, Ulster Bank (RBoS), M&S, Vodafone, O2 and B effing T to name but a few, milk us all pretty well today>

Seriously though-think home rule, not just continuing as before.

billy the squid

17 percent VAT instead of 21 percent.

postcodes

a telecom regulator with balls

better roads

No TV3

A half decent reason for irish people to watch english football teams on TV/

rainbows

sunshine

happiness

Ajnag

More industrialised? Smaller service sector? Larger Rates of immigration? Less corruption?


Hmm... thing is with what if's is you could easily spend an eternatity make points from both positive and negative perspective. This version of history suits me fine tho.

the_syco

More pissed off people. IRB maybe more organised. IRB may have helped/gained support from the Germans. Two pronged attack against the British homeland, from the Germans, and from the IRB. I assume the IRB would still be around, as the IRA may not have been formed, as there may not have been a split as extreme as there was?

No celtic tiger, still have people leaving, lots of people still poor...

Kernel

Constant rebellion on the streets. Occupation of government buildings leading to eventual death of all revolutionaries involved, leading to a civil uprising. At least, that's the way I'd do it.

Kernel

By the way, I say that as someone who had a great grandfather involved in the socialist/repulican revolution (1916 rising), someone whose grandmother remembered the black & tans firing rifles into her house windows while the tans where on their way to the city centre (the house was not republican and full of children), and another grandfather who was in Croke Park the time the occupying force rolled an armoured car onto the pitch and shot players and supportes indiscriminately (he was a child at the time)...

Not a million years ago.

Maskhadov

Ireland would have been heavily bombed in the second world war.

Other european countries wouldnt have any good faith towards us because were british.

Al Quida would be carrying out suicide bombings in Dublin since we are part of the Iraqi occupation.

Ireland would be morally guilty for backing the Iraqi war.

Catholic and Irish culture would be second fiddle to protestant and british culture. Much like Northern Ireland.

We would have a weak economy slightly worse than scotland.

Still a MASSIVE inferiority complex with english and scots rubbing our noses in it.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

BuffyBot

Al Quida would be carrying out suicide bombings in Dublin since we are part of the Iraqi occupation.

Eh? By that reason they should have bombed Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff...etc etc by now.

Anyway, I suspect that even if home rule had been granted, we probably would have ended up being independent by now anyway, in much the same way that other British territories gained theirs.

murphaph

BuffyBot wrote:

Eh? By that reason they should have bombed Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff...etc etc by now.

and BELFAST of course!

BuffyBot wrote:

Anyway, I suspect that even if home rule had been granted, we probably would have ended up being independent by now anyway, in much the same way that other British territories gained theirs.

I disagree. I agree with the point that was made that had we lasted in the Union, even under home rule (that's just old fahioned speak for what the scots have now-devolved government) until the welfare state had been introduced, we would still be in it today. We were not just another colony, like India or Kenya that gained independence remember-we were actually part of the UK, so the welfare state etc. would have been introduced here.

murphaph

Maskhadov wrote:

Ireland would be morally guilty for backing the Iraqi war.

We still allow United States military aircraft to use the facilities at Shannon, so we are 'morally' 'guilty' of that regardless.

Maskhadov wrote:

Catholic and Irish culture would be second fiddle to protestant and british culture. Much like Northern Ireland.

<casts mind back to priests/brothers/nuns battering the living fcuk out of all and sundry, particularly little kids.> Maybe protestantism isn't the bogey man when viewed against this backdrop?

Maskhadov wrote:

We would have a weak economy slightly worse than scotland.

The economy of the UK as a whole is vey robust, and Scotland is doing rather well for itself IMO. We are 'paper rich' in this country. A lot of this perceived wealth could vanish as quickly as it came. Personally I think we'd have seen a lot more state funding of R&D incubators at irish universities, thus spurring on indigenous industry and reducing the (still) overwhelming dependence on FDI in this country.

Maskhadov wrote:

Still a MASSIVE inferiority complex with english and scots rubbing our noses in it.

Ah you're only inferior if you let people make you feel that way. Are the scots any less scottish inside the Union? I don't think so. They have maintained their identity and even americans can recognise that a scot != an englishman.

Maskhadov

at the end of the day we would be the thick micks .. second class citzens in our own country.

usa use of shannon is bad enough but i dont want blood on my hands in supporting an imperial war machine.

im not a brit and never want to be. thank god the brits left. just look at the north, hardly a great example for us to follow eh ??

Zebra3

CerebralCortex wrote:

Ireland could have even provided more space for the RAF, and the Royal Navy thus giving more of an advantage to the British over the German force meaning a quicker end to World War 2. What with all the extra men and resources Ireland would have provided it would have to have had made a difference.

Britain had very little to do with the defeat of Germany in WWII.

Britain (through her natural defence barrier-the sea) held out against Germany and nothing more. It was the U.S. and mainly the U.S.S.R. that defeated Germany.

The only benefit I could see from a united Ireland in the union would be a united Irish football team. :cool:

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

and Scotland is doing rather well for itself IMO.

And so they should considering they have been supplying nearly all the natural resources for energy within the UK for decades. Imagine what Scotland would have been like if she was independent?

Are the scots any less scottish inside the Union? I don't think so.

Of course they are, they are British. Scottish is not a recognised nationality.

They have maintained their identity and even americans can recognise that a scot != an englishman.

Quite funny that one. The British Broadcasting Commission is mainly English biased. British Sky Broadcasing is even more English biased. It does not matter if someone in the US knows where Scotland is, the people are still British not Scottish. The Welsh are in an even worse position with respect to the wipe out of their identity outside of Wales.

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Of course they are, they are British. Scottish is not a recognised nationality.

So thats why we, and they, refer to them as Scots. Its because they're British!

It all makes sense now.

I'm guessing that you see the people in Northern Ireland as British and not Irish as well, then, yes?

Oh...no...it diesn't....

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Comes down to what you call your own country

I see. So Scottish are British because they call themselves Scottish, but Northern Irish are Irish because they call themselves that.

Perfectly logical and consistent.


Going back to the OP...

I think Dublin might have gotten an Underground like London & Glasgow.

You are either kidding yourself or are unaware of the geological problems with building an underground in Dublin. Consider that both Glasgow and London undergrounds were open before the start of the 1900s.

Dublin had an exceptionally good tram system back then. It had no need of an underground.

Funny how some things don't change.

jc

murphaph

bonkey wrote:

You are either kidding yourself or are unaware of the geological problems with building an underground in Dublin. Consider that both Glasgow and London undergrounds were open before the start of the 1900s.

Eh, parts of the London Underground are still being opened a couple of years ago. There seems to be a belief that Dublin is an impossible place to bore tunnels, but the DPT is all but finished, and of course if it's because you believe the technology of the day was no match for Grainne and Megan, an underground can be built using C&C techniques (most of the NY Subway and lots of Geman U-Bahnen are constructed this way) which is just a matter of excavating topsoil, geology hardly comes into it in that case.

Just look at the infrastructure we do have today. All the railways were built using british money in the main (including the Phoenix Park Tunnel!). We'd have no DART today if they hadn't raised the funds for the Dublin-Kingstown Railway, which when extended to be the DSER had to overcome serious geological problems along it's elevated route by the sea (Brunel had to be called in to tunnel through Bray Head and erect the arches to span the gorges down there (most of these are disused/gone now as the route was realigned further inland later on).

Just because Dublin had one of the finest tram networks in the World, doesn't mean an Underground wouldn't have been built-virtually all cities that have undergrounds today also have or had extensive tram networks, including London & New York. it's because the trams prove or proved innefective in moving people en-masse that they further develop(ed) their transport infrastructure by implementing undergrounds.

I'm not saying for certain that we'd have an Underground, but you can't say for certain that we wouldn't is all I am saying.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

And so they should considering they have been supplying nearly all the natural resources for energy within the UK for decades. Imagine what Scotland would have been like if she was independent?

Nigeria is one of the largest oil exporters in the world. Exporting oil does not imply that a country's people will benefit from it. Some have of course, doesn't Aberdeen have the lowest unemployment figures in the whole UK?

There is of course the flip side-it took massive amounts of money to explore the North Sea oil fields, it's one of the harshest environments in the world (not exactly Texas or Louisianna where it actually bubbled out of the ground!), british money-would Scotland have even been able to afford to develop them independently of oil companies, who aren't exactly renowned for being benevolent towards the indigenous populations from whence they extract the crude?

It's very simplistic to say oil makes a country rich. Ireland couldn't afford to explore the Corrib gas field just recently, so along come Shell & Statoil and take the lion's share. Same deal would have happened in Scotland. Remember too that much of the North Sea Oil could be claimed by England if the UK did not exist as a Union, because the territorial waters around England contain many of the reserves that make up the North Sea Oil fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_sea_oil

robinph

bonkey wrote:

So thats why we, and they, refer to them as Scots. Its because they're British!

No, you refer to them as Scottish for the same reason as you might refer to somone from Liverpool as a scouser.

Scotland, Wales, NI and England are not countries, they are just regions of the UK that happen to have rugby and soccer teams.

http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm

Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and most notably the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are not countries.)

netwhizkid

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. Wouldn't we surely have been offered the same deal. However I am certain that the country is in a better position today although divided, than it would be if we were under British Rule or had only achieved our independence not so long ago, say maximum 50 yrs. We were also a catalyst and inspiration for African Countries to rebel and achieve their Independence, Would I be wrong to state that had we not rebelled and achieved our Independence that the British Empire would still be fairly well intact, (we were the first to defeat them) Correct me if I'm wrong btw.

robinph

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. Wouldn't we surely have been offered the same deal. However I am certain that the country is in a better position today although divided, than it would be if we were under British Rule or had only achieved our independence not so long ago, say maximum 50 yrs. We were also a catalyst and inspiration for African Countries to rebel and achieve their Independence, Would I be wrong to state that had we not rebelled and achieved our Independence that the British Empire would still be fairly well intact, (we were the first to defeat them) Correct me if I'm wrong btw.

I think the reason the British empire collapsed had more to do with Germany than any rebellions by particular countries. The cost of the war and India leaving meant there was not any money left, or desire, to keep the empire running.

county

robinph wrote:

Scotland, Wales, NI and England are not countries, they are just regions of the UK that happen to have rugby and soccer teams.

crazy talk,so england is a region in the UK,NO england is a country within the UK,i will not ask you to prove your point as i would be impossible

robinph

county wrote:

crazy talk,so england is a region in the UK,NO england is a country within the UK,i will not ask you to prove your point as i would be impossible

Well as you clearly didn't look at the link I provided I'm not sure there is much point in giving another one, but anyway.

I cannot see England listed here in a list of the 193 recognised countires of the world:

http://geography.about.com/library/misc/blnationalcapitals.htm

county

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. Wouldn't we surely have been offered the same deal. However I am certain that the country is in a better position today although divided, than it would be if we were under British Rule or had only achieved our independence not so long ago, say maximum 50 yrs. We were also a catalyst and inspiration for African Countries to rebel and achieve their Independence, Would I be wrong to state that had we not rebelled and achieved our Independence that the British Empire would still be fairly well intact, (we were the first to defeat them) Correct me if I'm wrong btw.

defeat i think is a bit strong as the brits still have 6 counties on the island,but the empire did go to pot and i feel the irish up raising was the catalyst for this

Cronus333

I'd get to vote Liberal Democrat....

murphaph

Cronus333 wrote:

I'd get to vote Liberal Democrat....

Me too.

As for England not being a country-this technically correct, it isn't. It's like the 6 counties that make up NI aren't real either (apart from in GAA land), they abolished their county councils in 1974 and they have (coincidentally?) 26 local authorities up there now. The michelin maps don't show the 6 counties at all-they show administrative areas like Newry & Mourne, Banbridge etc.

I'm happy to describe England as a 'country' though. It would sound very weird to talk about it in terms of it being a 'region' IMO, just like I still talk about Co. Down and so on.

murphaph

Just realised the insurance on my motorbike would be a damned sight cheaper than it is now.

fly_agaric

murphaph wrote:

I doubt Dublin would have seen a lot of bombing to be honest. We didn't bild ships like Belfast did. Belfast was much more industrialised and would have always been the main target of german bombing IMO.

The welfare state idea is very interesting.

Well ,Hitler did like bombing civilians and Dublin was supposedly the "second city" of the empire at one time, so I'd imagine the Luftewaffe would have given it at least one pasting if we had been fully signed up and contributing to the British war effort.

murphaph

fly_agaric wrote:

Well ,Hitler did like bombing civilians and Dublin was supposedly the "second city" of the empire at one time, so I'd imagine the Luftewaffe would have given it at least one pasting if we had been fully signed up and contributing to the British war effort.

A war effort that, combined with the war efforts of the other allies, saved us all from being in the 3rd Reich today (I'm sure our 'non-aryan' and gay contributors are glad of that, as they'd be gassed).

I'm proud that my grandfather saw fit to cross the border and join up to fight the good fight instead of cowering here and bickering about whose side who was on during the war of independence :rolleyes:

fly_agaric

murphaph wrote:

A war effort that, combined with the war efforts of the other allies, saved us all from being in the 3rd Reich today (I'm sure our 'non-aryan' and gay contributors are glad of that, as they'd be gassed).

I'm proud that my grandfather saw fit to cross the border and join up to fight the good fight instead of cowering here and bickering about whose side who was on during the war of independence :rolleyes:

What did I put in that post that píssed you off so much?
Judging by your highlighting it must have been the reference to a "British" rather than an "allied" war effort? You have read much too much into what I wrote.
I only meant that Ireland would have been part of the UK, contributing to its war effort which was part of the overall allied war effort. I suppose I should have said "UK" instead. :rolleyes:

IMO, if Ireland had still been in the union we, of course, would not have been able to have Dev's neutral on the side of the allies policy -> Dublin would have got bombed at some point just like any other large British (oops UK ) city in range of the Germans, no matter how much or how little of the UK's industrial production was based here. That counts as a consequence of Ireland being in the union.

That would have been a bad thing for the Dubliners involved. I never made any judgement as to whether it would have been worth it or not, or whether Ireland had a moral obligation to join in the war. I never made any negative or positive comments about people, like your grandfather, who did go and join the British army to go fight the Nazis. Their individual actions were never going to get cities in Ireland bombed.

I don't doubt that Dublin would have been rebuilt well, and probably, as you said, we would have a much better transport infrastructure than we have now.

murphaph

fly_agaric wrote:

What did I put in that post that píssed you off so much?

My apologies fly_agaric, I should have stated that I wasn't attacking your post, it just reminded me how a lot of folk (not saying you!) think it's great that we maintained neutrality during the so-called 'emergency'.

fly_agaric

murphaph wrote:

My apologies fly_agaric, I should have stated that I wasn't attacking your post, it just reminded me how a lot of folk (not saying you!) think it's great that we maintained neutrality during the so-called 'emergency'.

Ok - I was probably being too sensitive.
Ireland's neutrality in WW2 was cowardly and self-interested, but it was the smart thing to do in the circumstances. It's not exactly something people can be proud of though.

Blackjack

fly_agaric wrote:

Ok - I was probably being too sensitive.
Ireland's neutrality in WW2 was cowardly and self-interested, but it was the smart thing to do in the circumstances. It's not exactly something people can be proud of though.

What exactly was cowardly about it, might I dare to ask?. Given the circumstances, it was the only course of action. As regards Self Interest, what would you have expected a quite financially strapped country to do?. A Governments job is to serve the best interests of the Citizens it represents - getting Ireland involved in WW2 certainly would not have been in the interest of the Nation or it's Citizens.
There was a lot of Anti-British feeling in the country at the time, and involving ourselves in a War on the same side as the British would have been a very dangerous situation to get into.
Were the Swiss cowardly?. Were the Spanish Cowardly?. Were the Dutch and the Belgians cowardly before being overrun by the Germans?.
Perhaps the US only got brave because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour?.