If Ireland only got independence now, what would it be like?

Rocket19 · 28-07-2012 10:00PM

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat, would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

Is it not a language? Am I missing something? It doesn't cease to be a language just because you (for whatever reason) don't value it.
Foreign languages ARE of course taught in schools (I started Spanish at 10), so it's not like we're depriving kids of learning or being insular in any way. We're Irish, it's not that far-fetched a notion that we should learn and preserve our own language (which btw, is important historically and archaeologically). There are thousands of languages worldwide, with only a handful deemed 'useful' internationally. Should we therefore abolish all languages that aren't French/English/Mandarin?

By "culchie brigade", I'm assuming you mean the GAA? How ridiculous. While I, of course don't agree with many of their actions in the past, their main purpose was to preserve our culture and language, something which I whole-heartedly agree with. What is it wth certain people's opposition to preserving some culture and uniqueness in our country. Sexual repression was a symptom of the times. I don't think England was very liberal at the time either, so I don't really 'get' the finger-pointing.

Also, what do you mean by "culchie subversiveness"? How does that even apply in a modern context? Seems you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding "Culchies". Why? Asking as a Dub...

later12 · 28-07-2012 10:15PM

Riddle101 wrote: »

Ireland would be a lot more screwed up today if we had not gotten our Independence when we did. Assuming of course that the 1916 Rising still occurred and the War for Independence didn't get Ireland the boost we need. There would still be a lot of fighting going on. I mean the IRA are still active in Northern Ireland, so I can only imagine the IRA would still be around but a much larger organisation that extends across the entire island.

Ah, well if the question is "what if the pressure for independence was maintained post 1918, but no independence was forthcoming", then that's probably a legitimate observation.

But generally, if the 1918 movement had not arisen until 2012, I think it's reasonable to argue that we would be no less Irish than the Scots are Scottish, and no more persecuted for our "identity" than the Scots or the Welsh are.

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century, but indeed of whether or not Ireland became independent too early.

Indeed, it is my personal belief that the cruellest act that the United Kindgdom exacted upon the island of Ireland in the past 250 years was to grant independence when Ireland's institutions were poorly equipped to handle it. It was the last cruel blow, and locked Ireland into perhaps sixty years of social and economic stagnation.

It was to be a mistake that the United Kingdom didn't learn from, and was repeated widely across Africa and the colonies with far deeper, even more disastrous consequences.

Ms.M · 28-07-2012 10:22PM

^^^^ Partial thanks, not sure if "legitimacy" here is a loaded comment or not.

later12 wrote: »

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century,.

later12 · 28-07-2012 10:28PM

If a man can walk up to another man, pull a gun out of his overcoat and shoot that man dead, I think we should be able to raise the legitimacy of that act.

So I didn't mean it in a loaded or inflammatory way, and I was not intending to answer my own question.

But if we can look back and say "in 1920, we were similar to Scotland, and if there were no war of independence, we would still be similar to Scotland", then that does raise some rather uncomfortable questions about the legitimacy of the independence movement.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 28-07-2012 10:28PM

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over,

Seven of Ireland's heads of government were from Dublin, including the two most corrupt ones.

with their silly 'sports',

I presume you're referring to the GAA. What, might I ask, do you have against it so much? The GAA weren't unique in being part of the ruling Catholic establishment- Dev himself was a lifelong rugby fan for example.

their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and

I agree. But its not limited to rural Ireland, you'd have found plenty of this in Dublin as well.

their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat,

Will you stop with this nonsense. The majority of rural people in Ireland don't speak a word of Irish, while many in Dublin are enthusiastic supporters of it. Its not as black and white as you make out.

would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

Actually the power of the reactionary Catholic middle-class had been continaully on the rise under British rule, having been non-existent prior to the mid nineteenth century so you've no reason to assume this would happen. And, as I've already said, many of the biggest gombeens come from Dublin.

Cú Giobach · 28-07-2012 10:39PM

later12 wrote: »

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century, but indeed of whether or not Ireland became independent too early.

Ireland became independent because the people wanted it.
How can the desire of a people for the right to govern themselves be illegitimate?
From looking at what you have for your "location" it seems odd that you can question the legitimacy of a peoples desire to live as they want and not be forced to live as others insist they do.

Ms.M · 28-07-2012 10:42PM

later12 wrote: »

If a man can walk up to another man, pull a gun out of his overcoat and shoot that man dead, I think we should be able to raise the legitimacy of that act.

So I didn't mean it in a loaded or inflammatory way, and I was not intending to answer my own question.

But if we can look back and say "in 1920, we were similar to Scotland, and if there were no war of independence, we would still be similar to Scotland", then that does raise some rather uncomfortable questions about the legitimacy of the independence movement.

That's a good point. I suppose they didn't anticipate we'd be so similar to Scotland. Aswell as their greivances against the British Government, a good deal of their justification came in the hope of an Ireland "not merely free but Gaelic aswell." It might have been disingenuous but the Gaelic Revival would have seemed to be a wheel gathering momentum at that time. I rather think that we've been eejits since than that they were eejits then. Mind you a John Hume and Michael D.Higgins peaceful movement for independance might have been very sucessful and saved us and the British a lot of heartache.

woodoo · 28-07-2012 10:46PM

Rocket19 wrote: »

Seems you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding "Culchies". Why? Asking as a Dub...

Because they probably can't understand his nasally accent and don't like his bright white tracksuits.

Cú Giobach · 28-07-2012 10:50PM

later12 wrote: »

But if we can look back and say "in 1920, we were similar to Scotland, and if there were no war of independence, we would still be similar to Scotland", then that does raise some rather uncomfortable questions about the legitimacy of the independence movement.

It is impossible to know the future and for people in 1916/20 the only reference they would have had as to how a London government would treat Ireland in the future was from how things had been in the past, and that would not have been a very bright future from their perspective. They wanted no more of "that" treatment and wanted to take things into their own hands, as any right minded human being would.

later12 · 28-07-2012 10:59PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Ireland became independent because the people wanted it.
How can the desire of a people for the right to govern themselves be illegitimate?

I didn't say the desire can be illegitimate, I was saying that a movement can be illegitimate depending on the methods it employs.

If Alex Salmond shot a policeman in the name of self-governance, and a band of extremists supported him, it would most likely be construed as an illegitimate act by most people.

And no, I'm not trying to compare 21st century Scotland to 20th century Ireland. I'm just saying means of securing self governance can be illegitimate. Nationalism is not a movement beyond question, and asking questions like that posed by the OP is a worthwhile endeavour.

From looking at what you have for your "location" it seems odd that you can question the legitimacy of a peoples desire to live as they want and not be forced to live as others insist they do.

Just to clarify, Queer Street usually relates to financial embarrassment. I'm not gay. Nevertheless, I would be very cautious in relating the gay rights movement to nationalistic aspirations. Nobody was actually criminalising Irishness or procluding Irish people from the normal rights of citizenship like marriage or raising children.

Rocket19 · 28-07-2012 11:23PM

woodoo wrote: »

Because they probably can't understand his nasally accent and don't like his bright white tracksuits.

Oh the irony.

Cú Giobach · 28-07-2012 11:24PM

later12 wrote: »

I didn't say the desire can be illegitimate, I was saying that a movement can be illegitimate depending on the methods it employs.

No you certainly didn't. Not in the post I replied to.

If Alex Salmond shot a policeman in the name of self-governance, and a band of extremists supported him, it would most likely be construed as an illegitimate act by most people.

Indeed but we are talking about a different time and don't forget a different time means a different place, you are again looking at the actions of people in the past from the perspective of the present.
The history of British rule here was violent, violence breeds violence.

And no, I'm not trying to compare 21st century Scotland to 20th century Ireland. I'm just saying means of securing self governance can be illegitimate. Nationalism is not a movement beyond question, and asking questions like that posed by the OP is a worthwhile endeavour.

Yes it is an interesting question and one that will create debate, don't expect to post and not be challenged.

Just to clarify, Queer Street usually relates to financial embarrassment. I'm not gay. Nevertheless, I would be very cautious in relating the gay rights movement to nationalistic aspirations. Nobody was actually criminalising Irishness or procluding Irish people from the normal rights of citizenship like marriage or raising children.

Not down here it isn't, to me it sounds like a double entente worthy of a carry on film. Oooh matron I'm feeling a bit up queer street today.

Sorry for the error though.
And no they weren't criminalising Irishness, but one of the most basic human rights is the right to self determination, and that one had been barbarically trodden on for quite a while.
You say nationalistic aspirations but I am talking about the right to self determination and yes gay rights are in a similar vein to that.

charlemont · 28-07-2012 11:40PM

later12 wrote: »

Ah, well if the question is "what if the pressure for independence was maintained post 1918, but no independence was forthcoming", then that's probably a legitimate observation.

But generally, if the 1918 movement had not arisen until 2012, I think it's reasonable to argue that we would be no less Irish than the Scots are Scottish, and no more persecuted for our "identity" than the Scots or the Welsh are.

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century, but indeed of whether or not Ireland became independent too early.

Indeed, it is my personal belief that the cruellest act that the United Kindgdom exacted upon the island of Ireland in the past 250 years was to grant independence when Ireland's institutions were poorly equipped to handle it. It was the last cruel blow, and locked Ireland into perhaps sixty years of social and economic stagnation.

It was to be a mistake that the United Kingdom didn't learn from, and was repeated widely across Africa and the colonies with far deeper, even more disastrous consequences.

Did you ever hear of the famine ? Act of Union perhaps !! Kilmainham maybe ?

dttq · 28-07-2012 11:51PM

Seanchai wrote: »

Better still, imagine Ireland without people who still think as you do.

Even better still, imagine Ireland without people who still think like the Seanchai's of this country do. Utopian possibly.

Shryke · 28-07-2012 11:56PM

I imagine we would have better infrastructure and planning. The state of Galway on the planning side of things is awful. I can't imagine that a bloated mess like eircom was/is could get away with existing as it did without any investment in infrastructure for example.
More multiculturalism I suppose which would have been nice.
The grip of the catholic church isn't something that can be rightly blamed on anyone except for the evil and cruel perpetrators of oppression and abuse but things couldn't have been as bad as they were.

Seanchai · 29-07-2012 12:26AM

later12 wrote: »

If Alex Salmond shot a policeman in the name of self-governance, and a band of extremists supported him, it would most likely be construed as an illegitimate act by most people.

That's a logical fallacy. Clearly, if Alex Salmond shot a policeman of the British state in Scotland it would be that policeman, state and its supporters which were the "band of extremists".

See, two can play at your "Here's my cognitively biased analogy" game.

Why you assume that the Scot fighting for freedom is the "extremist" while the British unionist and his state's military opposing it is not is indicative of your prejudices alone.

Seanchai · 29-07-2012 12:27AM

dttq wrote: »

Even better still, imagine Ireland without people who still think like the Seanchai's of this country do.

That was an embarrassingly unoriginal comeback. Must try harder.

dttq · 29-07-2012 12:35AM

Seanchai wrote: »

That was an embarrassingly unoriginal comeback. Must try harder.

As original as the types who wear Celtic jerseys and get their news from the Irish Sun, yet call others west brits etc.

dttq · 29-07-2012 12:36AM

Seanchai wrote: »

That was an embarrassingly unoriginal comeback. Must try harder.

As original as the types who wear Celtic jerseys and get their news from the Irish Sun, yet call others unIrish etc.

Duckworth_Luas · 29-07-2012 12:41AM

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat, would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

Oh FFS! This is on a whole new level of ignorant stupidity, even for AH!

Seanchai · 29-07-2012 01:01AM

Shryke wrote: »

I imagine we would have better infrastructure and planning. The state of Galway on the planning side of things is awful. I can't imagine that a bloated mess like eircom was/is could get away with existing as it did without any investment in infrastructure for example.
More multiculturalism I suppose which would have been nice.

1. In 1976 Britain was bankrupt and bailed out by the IMF. Most of Britain's admirers here aren't aware of this. Fortunately for Britain, more oil was discovered in Argyll off Scotland around the same time. This has allowed Britain to finance infrastructure that it otherwise may not have been able to, particularly given that it was bankrupt in the 1970s, just as it was in 1946 when the United States gave it billions via the Marshall Plan. It wasted this, also, and ended up bankrupt again. Just look at how the British industrial and manufacturing base has shrunk since the early 1970s. Its once formidable car industry is all but gone. Britain, particularly London, is a massive financial services centre now. Most people now appreciate how insecure that is but Britain has far less manufacturing and industrial infrastructure compared to, say, Germany

2. Eircom? While Eircom is indeed dire and has been exploited by loyal British knights like Sir Anthony O'Reilly, privatising British Rail (and many other public bodies) from the 1980s on didn't exactly work wonders for that infrastructure, did it? It has arguably been a disaster. The average English person has a far less romantic view of the success of their infrastructure.

3. Multiculturalism, by most British yardsticks, isn't exactly a success in Britain. Witness the massive riots last summer. It's a source of regret mostly. As the British police said to Lenihan a few years back when he asked about the Sikh headgear for gardaí: "If we could turn back time...we wouldn't allow it.". Britain, for most Brits, has moved far too much to the extent that second and third-generation families frequently identify with their ancestral homeland rather than Britain.

Seanchai · 29-07-2012 01:02AM

I'm not quite sure why so many people here are keen to develop a false understanding of the level of planning, infrastructure, thought, organisation, wealth or success in Britain. It could only be to satisfy some desire to put Ireland down.

If you want to look down on Ireland, you'd be better off choosing Germany (infrastructure) or Finland (education) or France (health) than Britain. This entire "Britain is still the centre of the world" malarkey in 2012 is embarrassingly ignorant and parochial.

Seanchai · 29-07-2012 01:10AM

dttq wrote: »

As original as the types who wear Celtic jerseys and get their news from the Irish Sun, yet call others west brits etc.

dttq wrote: »

As original as the types who wear Celtic jerseys and get their news from the Irish Sun, yet call others unIrish etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

golden lane · 29-07-2012 01:11AM

Seanchai wrote: »

1. In 1976 Britain was bankrupt and bailed out by the IMF. Most of Britain's admirers here aren't aware of this. Fortunately for Britain, more oil was discovered in Argyll off Scotland around the same time. This has allowed Britain to finance infrastructure that it otherwise may not have been able to, particularly given that it was bankrupt in the 1970s, just as it was in 1946 when the United States gave it billions via the Marshall Plan. It wasted this, also, and ended up bankrupt again. Just look at how the British industrial and manufacturing base has shrunk since the early 1970s. Its once formidable car industry is all but gone. Britain, particularly London, is a massive financial services centre now. Most people now appreciate how insecure that is but Britain has far less manufacturing and industrial infrastructure compared to, say, Germany

2. Eircom? While Eircom is indeed dire and has been exploited by loyal British knights like Sir Anthony O'Reilly, privatising British Rail (and many other public bodies) from the 1980s on didn't exactly work wonders for that infrastructure, did it? It has arguably been a disaster. The average English person has a far less romantic view of the success of their infrastructure.

3. Multiculturalism, by most British yardsticks, isn't exactly a success in Britain. Witness the massive riots last summer. It's a source of regret mostly. As the British police said to Lenihan a few years back when he asked about the Sikh headgear for gardaí: "If we could turn back time...we wouldn't allow it.". Britain, for most Brits, has moved far too much to the extent that second and third-generation families frequently identify with their ancestral homeland rather than Britain.

i don't recognise the uk that you describe......

i have been here for fifty years.....we are better of now than we have ever been......just owe a bit of money, like everywhere else.....

not bad for a country that stood up to hitler.....when all others on the continent surrendered....

and britain spent all it's money fighting to help them......

BlueSmoker · 29-07-2012 01:15AM

Only glanced through this thread, and it just goes to show, what whinge buckets we have become, up until the 1980's we fought for everything we had. My Father as a untrained engineer, studied how the locals heating systems worked, so that he could help his neighbours, in fixing their heating systems, (why cause he was good at it) and occasionally it put food on the table.

Now everyone seems to be griping about how much everyone else is getting besides themselves. Public against Private, workers against non workers, Irish against non Irish, old against young, vunerable against tax payer, everyone else is to blame but ourselves (we own some responisbility to what has happened in our country) and mainly because we all took our eye off the ball, because we were told we were rich in the 1990's and 2000's, not one of us question why we became rich so quick or why most weren't even seeing it. We thought we had arrived in Tir na Óg, well Dermid has now fallen from his horse and we need to deal with it here and now.

So if we just got Independence, today, a week or even 5 years ago, we would have acted like a spolit child and throwen our toys out of the pram, but at least our grandparents and parents wouldn't be cringing at the way we are acting, cause that would have being the way they brought us up.

But we got our Independence in 1921, and our grandparents and parents fought tooth and nail for that, and through very other hard ship since then, and if I was them I would give Ireland a huge slap to cop on, instead of the last 5 years of sling mud in the playground at each other, and start looking at how to help each other, instead of blaming everyone else, and believe me there are people not that far away from you that need a lot of help.

Cú Giobach · 29-07-2012 01:30AM

After the the brutal suppression of the 1926 uprising there is a deep hatred within Ireland that spreads to Scottish and Welsh nationalists, that combined with the great depression leads to turmoil in Britain leaving her without the resources to continue the fight against the Germans in 1941 leading to a peace treaty between GB and the Reich.
Hence no jump off point for the D Day landings resulting in the Soviets sweeping across the whole of Europe.
Britain never having the economic recovery of the 50's leaves her an impoverished state.
Europe is then devastated by the wars of the 1980's and 90's as the various peoples try to get rid of the Russians.
The impoverished UK then breaks up but is not destroyed like the European mainland.
The Irish Democratic Republic, The Kingdom of Scotland, Cymraeg Gweriniaeth Sosialaidd Sofietaidd and The Republic of England (created after a Welsh nationalist bombs a royal wedding and the ensuing turmoils) all live happily ever after and eventually become the richest nations in the devestated Europe.
The End.

If it seems implausible just remember the actions of a Serb nationalist started a chain of events in 1914 that lead to the Europe we have today

later12 · 29-07-2012 01:34AM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And no they weren't criminalising Irishness, but one of the most basic human rights is the right to self determination, and that one had been barbarically trodden on for quite a while.

Self determination is something of an arbitrary term. Where does it stop; at the level of the island, the county, or the individual? There's no single answer, yet they cannot all be legitimate, for Irish nationalists, Cork men, and libertarians might well give you different answers.

In fact, many would argue that self determination was already provided for in early 20th century, pre-independence Ireland under parliamentary and local government, which was as democratic as elsewhere in the UK, and in no way denied or outlawed Irish culture or customs.

I ought to add at this point that I am by no means a Unionist, nor an admirer of the United Kingdom now or in its history. I just don't consider it established that self determination in an Irish context justified active warfare.

charlemont wrote: »

Did you ever hear of the famine ? Act of Union perhaps !! Kilmainham maybe ?

Way off topic here, but no I don't consider the Act of Union nor Kilmainham to have been as cruel as Britain's handling of Irish independence, the latter being a mishandling that led to civil war and decades of economic and social ruination.

Obviously, the famine and its aftermath were worse, & the UK behaved irresponsibly in relation to Ireland at that time. But I would be very sceptical about categorizing the Irish Famine as a direct grant of the British Government in the way that Independence was. So it doesn't belong in the same category.

Seanchai wrote: »

Why you assume that the Scot fighting for freedom is the "extremist" while the British unionist and his state's military opposing it is not is indicative of your prejudices alone.

Eh, because the "freedom fighter" does not have his civil rights impeded, lives in what would be regarded internationally as a liberated society, and enjoys full access to legitimate parliamentary, plebiscitary and associated democratic alternatives; to be decided in accordance with the wishes of his Scottish compatriots.

Cú Giobach · 29-07-2012 01:57AM

later12 wrote: »

Self determination is something of an arbitrary term. Where does it stop; at the level of the island, the county, or the individual? There's no single answer, yet they cannot all be legitimate, for Irish nationalists, Cork men, and libertarians might well give you different answers.

Look at a political map of the world the vast majority of those countries were ultimately formed by war, ours is no different.
People decide for themselves how to group themselves as they see fit, it is not for others to decide, and they can group according to their own criteria.

An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness

If an ethnic group want to control their own destiny and are willing to accept the consequences what gives others the right to say otherwise.

later12 wrote: »

In fact, many would argue that self determination was already provided for in early 20th century, pre-independence Ireland under parliamentary and local government, which was as democratic as elsewhere in the UK, and in no way denied or outlawed Irish culture or customs.

Under the ultimate control of foreigners. Something the people did not want.

later12 · 29-07-2012 02:06AM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Look at a political map of the world the vast majority of those countries were ultimately formed by war, ours is no different.
People decide for themselves how to group themselves as they see fit, it is not for others to decide, and they can group according to their own criteria.

No that still doesn't answer my question.

If Irish nationalists (unionists one might say...), Corkmen, and libertarians all have different opinions on self determination, who gets to decide where the appropriate boundaries lie?

I hope you believe that we've come too far to pick up arms in the aspiration of resolving such an irrelevant, slightly absurd question; but perhaps you will enlighten us as to how this ought be resolved, in your opinion.

If an ethnic group want to control their own destiny and are willing to accept the consequences what gives others the right to say otherwise.

Oh, I don't know; democratic consultation; international law?

IrishAm · 29-07-2012 02:10AM

later12 wrote: »

If Irish nationalists (unionists one might say...), Corkmen, and libertarians all have different opinions on self determination, who gets to decide where the appropriate boundaries lie?

The Irish people. And the election results of 1918 gave Sinn Fein/Republicans a mandate.

If Ireland only got independence now, what would it be like?

Comments