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

later12 wrote: »

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?

We decided one boundary the British decided another, due to this impasse violence ensued, what makes the British boundary more legitimate? One that don't forget was formed and maintained by violence in the first place.
We humans divide ourselves up into groups as do all social animals, sometimes one group wants to dominate another, the result if the domination does not stop and one does not like being dominated, is violence.

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.

Common sense, an entire people consisting of millions desire to change a boundary formed and maintained by violence are the baddies according to you because they resorted to violence to change it after years and years of unsuccessful peaceful negotiation.
Think about it, the answer should be obvious.

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

Democratic consultation??
Do you think the results of the 1918 election were democratic??
Would ignoring the desire of the people who by voting for Sinn Féin voted for independence in 1918 be considered in line with international law today??

What do you do when a power ignores years and years of attempts at resolving a situation, give up? People do not do that today, they did not do it 100 years ago nor will they do it in 100 years time.
Like all animals on this planet we fight when our freedom is curtailed.

later12 wrote: »

You're still not answering the question.

For the umpth time; who gets to decide sovereignty? The island, the county, or the individual?

This is an age old question; I'm not seriously expecting a definitive answer;

But you are demanding one. Sad carry on :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight you are saying since every man, woman and child cannot be given independence this somehow makes the combined desire of millions redundant and questionable.
The question is unanswerable philosophically, but in the real world where real people are involved it HAS to be answered. You cannot throw your hands in the air and say "sorry but since every human can't have their own little state, we are deciding now who is part of this one so end of and bugger off".

golden lane wrote: »

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......

Britain did not spend all its money to help Europe.
For a start it had no money, hence the attitude of appeasement that pervaded the entire country as the Rhineland was retaken and Czechoslovakia invaded.
Britain fought to maintain her Empire and so her people wouldn't have to fight for the right to govern themselves a generation later. She fought for the same reasons the Irish lads in 1921 did, the British people did not want to be ruled by a foreign power.

I think the words "beaten senseless" are a better description than "surrender", and what did the BEF do, yes you got it they ran away, as the French held the line at great cost to themselves to allow them to escape, many people with their pathetic "cheese eating surrender monkeys" comments forget this sacrifice.

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...

This comment has already received five thanks. I know most would dismiss the loathing of sex and guilt complex part, at least to the extent that it's being attributed solely to rural communities and "gaelic" cultural values. But is this opinion widely held?
GAA is bog ball, trad is diddley-eye music, the Irish language is a useless backward language, "gaelic" culture isn't a culture at all; just the whimsical anti-intellectual habits of the "culchie brigade"... etc.
I'm not saying Irish people ought to be avid GAA supporters, play the fiddle and speak Gaeilge. People have their own tastes. I'm not talking about people who don't want their tax-money supporting cultural values that they perhaps don't share either. But what about people who dismiss all things "gaelic" on the grounds that they're backward or for thickos? Why this level of contempt for "gaelic" culture? Is it that it's commonly called "Irish" culture and Irish people who haven't grown up with this version of "Irish" culture feel belittled and the hatred comes out of some insecurity about their patriotism? Or it it just that because it's referred to as "Irish" culture, Irish people that would be inclined towards bigotry in general or disrespect for cultures not their own feel they've a carte blanche to be as disdainful as they want?
The five-times thanked poster doesn't even consider GAA to be a "sport" or Irish to be a "language." They're very extreme beliefs and seeming as the poster is very common on the GAA thread, THANK FCUK HE WAS PROBABLY JOKING! but still, it got FIVE thanks; are these opinions widely held and why?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

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?

We decided one boundary the British decided another, due to this impasse violence ensued, what makes the British boundary more legitimate?

You're answering a question that nobody asked. I asked a specific question about the nature of self determination; who gets to decide on the unit of that statehood. An Irish nationalist might say 'Ireland', a Corkman might say 'Cork', a Ballincollig man might say 'Ballincollig' and a Ballincollig anarcho-libertarian might support the dismantling of most governing structures which detract from his own self sovereignty.

Just because something is an island, or just because a boundary was drawn on some ancient map does not mean that a region has some natural, God given right to independent nationhood. Nationalism is an entirely arbitrary human construct; its historical legitimacy needs to be examined on a case by case basis.

Democratic consultation??
Do you think the results of the 1918 election were democratic??

Why are you relating what I said to 1918?

I explicitly said that I was not comparing Scotland in 2012 to Ireland in 1918; my point about democratic consultation was based on a broader question about nationalism and the hypothetical Salmond shooting a policeman scenario in order to demonstrate that the nationalists would be the extremists in that case.

Like all animals on this planet we fight when our freedom is curtailed.

How on Earth was the average man's "freedom" curtailed in Ireland any differently to the situation elsewhere in the British isles in the early 20th century? You talk about "freedom" as though Ireland was in chains; in reality Irish people lived in one of the most liberated societies in the world at that time, had direct access to local and national government, freedom to practice their culture and customs, and lived with (indeed, joined) their own police forces and the judiciary.

I don't necessarily mind people wanting to construct arbitrary boundaries of self determination; each to their own. It's when they force these boundaries on others (this applies both to the United Kingdom and to the Irish militants at various times) that some of us find troublesome; especially when there seems to be scant logical basis for the statehood they are seeking.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

A very good and very simple question, that people who hold such feeling don't seem to ask themselves. Sometimes the very people who would make such comments are the first to shot "bigotry" or "racism" to someone espousing a similar sentiment about other peoples.

Sentiments such as these I feel all come from the same place ignorance. You rarely get such comments from some of the more intellectually minded posters who are able to have an adult discussion on a wide variety of topics. Sadly an awareness of how wonderful the rich variety of music, languages, sports etc are on this planet, and how the loss of any one of them leaves us all poorer as a result seems to be lacking.

Well it certainly appears to be ignorance. But you do occasionally get such comments from people who seem to consider themselves intellectual and as you say yourself, rightly condemn racism. It's annoying being shoved in a bracket which is made out to be backward or insular when, if anything, bearing a rabid hatred of all things "gaelic" surely makes you more susceptible to disliking cultures that aren't your own; since that's exactly what you're doing in this instance. And from a language point of view, based on my own experience I would guess that people who speak Irish are slightly more likely to speak another European language than people who don't.
It would be interesting to hear from those who do despise "gaelic" culture in regards to my previous post. Do either of my reasons hit the nail on the head? Or is there another reason that I'm ignorant of?
I'm not waiting to attack anyone, and I respect that people have cultural values that are perfectly "Irish" but have nowt to do with "gaelic" culture, but why, for some people, is this respect not reciprocated?
Why do you hate or belittle it?

Seanchai wrote: »

There's something about the use of this term that sums up the user's politics more than thousands of posts.

Pointless arguing with somebody who uses it.

Surely it depends on whether they're using the term as a political point or whether it's something they use because that's the generally accepted geographical term for the islands, one that's also been used in Irish text books as far as I remember.

When referring to the islands of Ireland and Britain, what collective term do you use?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Most people are well aware of whether they can make a viable state or not.
A Saor Ballincollig movement wouldn't get off the ground because the people would be well aware it would not be viable.

Of course it could be. Ballincollig has almost twice the population of Tuvalu, and is almost as big as Palau. Small economies with no natural resources find lots of clever, inventive ways of financing themselves; just look at Ireland - a country whose economic viability as an independent state has itself been called into serious question throughout the 20th century, and today.

Under the ultimate control of foreigners who ruled here putting the economic needs of those in Britain before the needs of those here, and denying those here the ability to change that, is denying freedom.

That's a very dubious argument. Three points stick out at once.

(i) a similar claim could be made against the Dublin government by disadvantaged counties of Ireland. A similar claim could be made by the disadvantaged town councils against the county councils. A similar claim could be made by the disadvantaged residents against their respective town councils, all of whom in turn believe that their economic needs are being ignored.
(ii) in fact, the London government went further by writing Home Rule into law. And not having sat at Westminster, the Sinn Fein MPs failed to even attempt to secure independence peacefully. The reason it had not been secured peacefully before was because the IPP had historically had little interest in outright independence, just like an awful lot of Irish people.
(iii) Would that Northern nationalists respected the sentiments you expressed! No doubt you are a defender of the rights of Ulster's Union with the UK, then, are you?

Is not being a second class citizen in a country scant logical basis?

Was James Joyce a second class citizen, or his wealthy industrialist ancestors? Samuel Beckett? Bernard Shaw? Was Kevin Barry a second class citizen when he walked out of Belvedere College and into the UCD medical school on Merrion Square? Was Padraig Pearse a second class citizen, when after being called to the bar he opened his famous school? Were Michael Moloney and Peter O Brien and Michael Morris, all Catholic Irishmen, second class citizens when they each respectively sat as Lord Chief Justice if their own country? No, I don't think the term second class citizen applies to Irishmen who enjoyed the same rights as others in the UK at that time, who were free to engage in their culture, practice their religion, access education, and go about their normal lives living in peace with their families and friends.

Is the fact the memory of the famine was very much alive in 1920 scant logical basis?

In that case, one might say it was very much alive in the mid 1920s when the last people to die from starvataion died in Co. Cork, Saor Stat Eire.

Strangely you don't seem to find the artificial construct of the UK of GB and Ireland questionable but you do the real grouping based on the shared ethnicity of the Irish people.

I do; I already said I'm opposed to people pushing their nationalism on society using violence.

200,000 years of modern human evolution and I'm fairly sure we ought to have got to the stage where we start deciding these things using rulers, markers and logical arguments.

From my point of view, I feel that union with the UK made economic sense in the world of early 20th century Ireland and later within Europe, where our interests still converge today. However I can also see reasons for preserving self governance. There were some very logical arguments in favour of that which, as we know, Sinn Fein never actually bothered to propose in the established democratic institutions of the day.