Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

13

Comments

  • #62
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    osarusan wrote: »
    And your misrepresentation of his comments on British rule in Ireland is being rather unkind to him.

    I'll buy him a pint when I meet him,he'll be grand.


  • #63
    Worksforyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Worksforyou


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Or export the majority of your school leavers rather than find a way of creating jobs for them.

    That's bad but not as bad as starving them to death.


  • #64
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I disagree, I believe the author is simply suggesting that Salmond's claims that independence=utopia are not true and that Ireland is a good example of what could happen.
    The author is proposing a "good historical model" that suggests that, based on the Irish experience, Scotland is doomed to become a "failed state" if it were to sever the cord with England. That is, it is the act of independence that leads to the impoverishment of a country.

    Now aside from being extremely historically weak* the not-so-implicit assumption is that an Ireland that remained within the UK would have been more prosperous than that which we saw historically. There is zero evidence for this and quite a lot to suggest the opposite. Most notably our actual experience with London rule.

    *I wonder what the author makes of the "empty nationalism" of the Baltic states - was their divorce from the USSR a "step backwards"?
    And it isn't post colonial either, Scotland was only ever an equal partner.
    Ireland was. As were many other countries. The authors clearly believes that Irish independence was a "backwards step" from British rule* and that the fault for this lies with Irish statesmen. Which is, as I've noted, to whitewash the previous failures of British rule. What a useful position for a FT writer to take.

    If this is to be a sticking point then the author shouldn't have made a flawed comparison

    *And this person is qualified to write history books? :eek:
    Or export the majority of your school leavers rather than find a way of creating jobs for them.
    Significantly more people emigrated from Ireland in the half century prior to independence than the century following it


  • #65
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I disagree, I believe the author is simply suggesting that Salmond's claims that independence=utopia are not true and that Ireland is a good example of what could happen.

    And it isn't post colonial either, Scotland was only ever an equal partner.

    Why is the present Queen not Queen Elizabeth I of the UK?


  • #66
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    In fairness, with the level of corruption and utter incompetence of all our leaders since the countrys "freedom" we should give the state back to the brits with an apology note.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    In fairness, with the level of corruption and utter incompetence of all our leaders since the countrys "freedom" we should give the state back to the brits with an apology note.

    When Ireland left the UK, we were the poorest region. If we rejoined today, we would be one of the richest regions.

    What exactly do think went "wrong"?


  • #68
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard


    I think that this article and its author are actually missing the great success story that was the Irish Free State, and the later Republic. Were things absolutely marvellous all the time? Of course not- things were often pretty dire for individuals and their families. While I think the level of corruption is always over-stated, there's no denying that it was problem. And the level of poverty, unemployment, and emigration is an aindication of great economic travails in post-colonial Ireland. Then there's the influence of the Catholic Church and the stifling conformity that resulted.

    However, to focus on that is to ignore many other pertinent facts. Firstly, poverty was far worse under the British. It's not as if the Brits left a prosperous populace which sank into poverty- as others pointed out, many poeple in Ireland lived in appalling poverty at the turn of the 20th century. Then you had the regular famines and which had blighted Ireland throughout the 19th centuries, and which had a catastrophic impact on the native Irish in particular. On indicators pertaining to poverty and hunger, post-independece Ireland was far better off than Ireland under colonial rule.

    Perhaps more importantly, to focus entirely on the negatives is to miss the stratling success of democracy in Ireland. Very few countries have ever had such a peaceful and stable transition from imperial decree to democratic self-determination. When one looks at what was happening elsewhere in Europe during the 20s and 30s, Ireland's democratic transition is all the more startling. Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal were all sliding into the Fascist abyss, while Russia was under the brutal authoritarian thumb of Stalin. There were a few bumps in Ireland, but in general, democratic principles and the rule of law were respected. It's not often acknowledged, but Ireland is one of the world's longest lived democracies. When one looks at the situations in other post-colonial nations- in Africa, South America, and Asia- Ireland's democratic success is all the more noteworthy.

    So yeah, we had our problems. The Church was often a malign influence- but far more benign than the Black Shirts in italy or the Brown Shirts in Germany. And yes, there was corruption- but I'd argue far less than there was in Italy and Greece. And yes, we had Charlie Haughey...but at least we got to choose him, and all our leaders since independence.

    Maybe then, instead of listening to the naysayers who would look at us as some form of failed state, we should look at all that post-independent Ireland achieved, and see a remarkably successful transition from a broken, colonial backwater, ruled by foreigners for almost a millenium, to a democratic society governed by the rule of law. This is something to be celebrated, whatever the foreign naysayers or colonial apologists would have one believe.


  • #69
    WilyCoyote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭WilyCoyote


    Fred! Go back to the Lipton's Yellow tea bags. Your early morning mug of Lyons/Barry's has too much caffeine. It's this that is distorting your reasoning. Otherwise you're a diamond geezer.
    By the way, congrats on Portsmouth not becoming a failed club :). The drop was imminent at one stage. But just like real life AND history ....... the tableau is ever changing.
    Take the hit ......... the empire is over and the quicker you and your cohorts realise that - the quicker your blood pressure will return to a kinda normal levels.


  • #70
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Why is the present Queen not Queen Elizabeth I of the UK?

    Is that a trick question?


  • #71
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    WilyCoyote wrote: »
    Fred! Go back to the Lipton's Yellow tea bags. Your early morning mug of Lyons/Barry's has too much caffeine. It's this that is distorting your reasoning. Otherwise you're a diamond geezer.
    By the way, congrats on Portsmouth not becoming a failed club :). The drop was imminent at one stage. But just like real life AND history ....... the tableau is ever changing.
    Take the hit ......... the empire is over and the quicker you and your cohorts realise that - the quicker your blood pressure will return to a kinda normal levels.

    You really do post some idiotic ****e don't you.

    Remind us, how long were you working in England?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    The problem with the comparison is that Scotland under English rule today is in no way comparable to Ireland under English rule then. They have equal freedom and opportunity to people in England. Ireland wasn't part of the U.K. it was occupied.


  • #73
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    While the history of the state has been far from perfect, you'd swear from that article that Ireland was prosperous and joyous in the UK and fell into independance and subsequent ruin.

    A lot of people seem to see the comparison as "Ireland in the 20s/30s Vs. Ireland now" when in my eyes it should be "Ireland in the 20s/30s Vs. Everywhere else in the 20s/30s". Ireland wasnt some conservative anomaly in an otherwise free and liberal world.

    By the time WW2 rolled around, nearly all of Central and Eastern Europe, plus Spain and Portugal were under fascist or other authoritarian regimes. Spain had Franco and fascism until the 70s FFS but people still reckon Ireland was the worst of the lot.

    In a lot of countries, when freedom was won the leaders of the rebels often reckoned they were owed the leadership of the country and so held on as dictatorships. From day one Ireland has had fair, free elections and democracy (Who we elect on the other hand....).

    Like a previous poster stated, if anything Ireland was a success story, even if it was a long time coming. It was a success story that in the days when the population of the empire were being told that it'd be suicidal to leave the UKs grasp, that Britain's oldest, nearest and constitutionaly closest possession managed to break free and go it alone.


  • #74
    sock puppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    WesternZulu wrote: »
    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.

    Im pretty sure the FT have ran multiple opinion pieces by writers advocating independence.


  • #75
    WilyCoyote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭WilyCoyote


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    You really do post some idiotic ****e don't you.

    Remind us, how long were you working in England?

    For longer than you are in Ireland.
    I'm telling you ...... drink decaf tea before you blow a fuse.
    Why on earth did you come to live in a failed State?
    If you think that foreign nationals whom have come to take up long time residence in England should integrate, then why don't you try integrating in Souff Dablin? Instead of holding on to your Little Englander ideas. These might seem charming in quaint French villages but are deemed idiotic in Ireland.
    However Fred, no hard feelings. We have taken you in and, regardless of your eccentricity, made you feel welcome.


  • #76
    Unknown Soldier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,122 ✭✭✭Unknown Soldier


    He was right about parochialism.

    It hasn't gone away.


  • #77
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    WilyCoyote wrote: »
    For longer than you are in Ireland.
    I'm telling you ...... drink decaf tea before you blow a fuse.
    Why on earth did you come to live in a failed State?
    If you think that foreign nationals whom have come to take up long time residence in England should integrate, then why don't you try integrating in Souff Dablin? Instead of holding on to your Little Englander ideas. These might seem charming in quaint French villages but are deemed idiotic in Ireland.
    However Fred, no hard feelings. We have taken you in and, regardless of your eccentricity, made you feel welcome.

    More bat**** crazy stuff from you I see. Maybe you should lay off the Guinness mo chara.

    When did I say Ireland was a failed state? All those years in Blighty and you still have problems understanding the Queen's English.


  • #78
    Robroy36
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 224 ✭✭Robroy36


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    wow, just wow!



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






    ...

    No logical argument - therefore "Muh feels"

    What are you? A feminist?


  • #79
    GaelMise
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 542 ✭✭✭GaelMise


    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.

    Earlier would surely have been much better?


  • #80
    Worksforyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Worksforyou


    GaelMise wrote: »
    Earlier would surely have been much better?

    Centuries earlier.


  • #81
    GaelMise
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 542 ✭✭✭GaelMise


    Merkin wrote: »
    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.

    It is very negativly biased, no mention at all of the success of taking the gun out of southern politics after the civil war, the idealism and integerity that went into creating an effective and efficinet public service in the early state, keeping Ireland a peacefull and democratic country in the 30's when so many others in Europe fell into revolution and dictatorship. Keeping out of WWII, though unpopular with a British reading public, saved Ireland from the destruction it would have entailed, not to mention the generally postitve and principled role we have managed to play on the internaitonal stage.
    Sure there were plenty of mistakes made, and dark chapters of our Independant history, but that is not the only story.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Legs.Eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,987 ✭✭✭Legs.Eleven


    Einhard wrote: »
    I think that this article and its author are actually missing the great success story that was the Irish Free State, and the later Republic. Were things absolutely marvellous all the time? Of course not- things were often pretty dire for individuals and their families. While I think the level of corruption is always over-stated, there's no denying that it was problem. And the level of poverty, unemployment, and emigration is an aindication of great economic travails in post-colonial Ireland. Then there's the influence of the Catholic Church and the stifling conformity that resulted.

    However, to focus on that is to ignore many other pertinent facts. Firstly, poverty was far worse under the British. It's not as if the Brits left a prosperous populace which sank into poverty- as others pointed out, many poeple in Ireland lived in appalling poverty at the turn of the 20th century. Then you had the regular famines and which had blighted Ireland throughout the 19th centuries, and which had a catastrophic impact on the native Irish in particular. On indicators pertaining to poverty and hunger, post-independece Ireland was far better off than Ireland under colonial rule.

    Perhaps more importantly, to focus entirely on the negatives is to miss the stratling success of democracy in Ireland. Very few countries have ever had such a peaceful and stable transition from imperial decree to democratic self-determination. When one looks at what was happening elsewhere in Europe during the 20s and 30s, Ireland's democratic transition is all the more startling. Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal were all sliding into the Fascist abyss, while Russia was under the brutal authoritarian thumb of Stalin. There were a few bumps in Ireland, but in general, democratic principles and the rule of law were respected. It's not often acknowledged, but Ireland is one of the world's longest lived democracies. When one looks at the situations in other post-colonial nations- in Africa, South America, and Asia- Ireland's democratic success is all the more noteworthy.

    So yeah, we had our problems. The Church was often a malign influence- but far more benign than the Black Shirts in italy or the Brown Shirts in Germany. And yes, there was corruption- but I'd argue far less than there was in Italy and Greece. And yes, we had Charlie Haughey...but at least we got to choose him, and all our leaders since independence.

    Maybe then, instead of listening to the naysayers who would look at us as some form of failed state, we should look at all that post-independent Ireland achieved, and see a remarkably successful transition from a broken, colonial backwater, ruled by foreigners for almost a millenium, to a democratic society governed by the rule of law. This is something to be celebrated, whatever the foreign naysayers or colonial apologists would have one believe.

    I think this is an excellent post.


  • #83
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,335 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    While were looking back at historical events, how about the highland clearouts and thatchers dismantling of industry.


  • #84
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    wendell borton wrote: »
    While were looking back at historical events, how about the highland clearout.

    It's good, but not as good as the highland jig?


  • #85
    WesternZulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭WesternZulu


    The piece is extremely negative and more or less alludes that us Irish could not, and cannot, govern ourselves.

    You'd swear from reading it that in the time since Irish independence that the UK was itself a utopia.

    It mentioned Ireland's failures but forgets how the UK in the meantime has lost its global influence, had to be bailed out by the IMF in the 70's, industrial strikes, their lost of indigenous industries like coal mining, the questionable handling of the troubles, poll tax riots, and the failure to integrate immigrants into some communities.

    Ireland has made mistakes since 1921; but so too has the UK.

    If the article was being truly impartial it would have mentioned some of the many international studies where Ireland regularly comes way ahead of the UK in terms of standard of living etc.

    Not bad going for a country that was one of the poorest in Europe when leaving the empire.


  • #86
    Andrew_Doran
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭Andrew_Doran


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

    I'm told that at the time of the Boer war (not long before independence), the populace of the UK was in such a bad way that they had trouble finding healthy men for the war. Those that did fight mostly came from more affluent places, such as Dublin.

    Like many, the narrative I grew up with at school was that we were dirt poor and they were rich. As always the truth lies somewhere between the extremes and is disappointingly nuanced to boot.


  • #87
    Worksforyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Worksforyou


    Andrew_Doran wrote: »
    I'm told that at the time of the Boer war (not long before independence), the populace of the UK was in such a bad way that they had trouble finding healthy men for the war. Those that did fight mostly came from more affluent places, such as Dublin.

    Like many, the narrative I grew up with at school was that we were dirt poor and they were rich. As always the truth lies somewhere between the extremes and is disappointingly nuanced to boot.

    No you didn't and others didn't either.


  • #88
    orangesoda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,223 ✭✭✭orangesoda


    Einhard wrote: »
    colonial backwater, ruled by foreigners for almost a millenium,

    It's worth noting that some areas weren't under English control for 600 years never mind 1000, Donegal for example


  • #89
    Andrew_Doran
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭Andrew_Doran


    Worksforyou wrote: »
    No you didn't and others didn't either.

    Do I know you? :)


  • #90
    Worksforyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Worksforyou


    Andrew_Doran wrote: »
    Do I know you? :)

    I'm your ****ing history teacher, now show some respect ya little bastard. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Unknown Soldier wrote: »
    He was right about parochialism.

    It hasn't gone away.
    I've always agreed with Kavanagh on parochialism:

    "Parochialism and provincialism are direct opposites. The provincial has no mind of his own; he does not trust what his eyes see until he has head what the metropolics - towards which his eyes are turned - have to say on the subject. This runs through all his activities. The parochial mentality on the other hand never is in any doubt about the social and artistic validity of his parish. All great civilisations are based on parochialism."


Advertisement
Advertisement