Post by Republic on Sept 21, 2009 23:13:43 GMT
Republic wrote 'However, the previous union was not an equal one - we were always the poor relation (I'm not shouting oppression here), and it originally came about through the barrel of a gun.'
You lot had me near believing that under British rule Ireland was forceably a poor nation treated like worthless second class citizens deprived of any advancement in industry etc.
However I would like to ask do any of you know that by the end of the 19th century, Ireland was booming due to Britain's imperial boom.
They estimate that: Ireland was the 7th richest country in the world in 1871. Britain was 1st.
Ireland was the 11th richest country in the world in 1911.
Ireland went into an economic slump after (i.e. caused by) independence, and fell far down the world ranking. It never achieved this (you might say its natural) world ranking again until the Celtic Tiger of the 1990s.
Not bad figures for an ever alledged oppressed society brought about by the barrel of a gun as republic put it.
Oh and this comes from the economic society journal which is one of the oldest and most prestigious economic associations in the world. It is a professional association promoting the encouragement of the study of economic science in academic life, government service, banking, industry and public affairs.
WASP, don't take it as a Brit-bashing exercise. I said 'originally' under the barrel of a gun. That is basically correct. Ireland has always been like that. Look at our history. Both sides of the divide. Everything has always been decided by, or influenced by, violence, guns and before that, swords and rocks.
I was aware of these figures for a long time. Ireland also had a disproportionate amount of representation in Westminster, we were over-represented. Land Acts at the turn of the century (the Wyndham Act of 1903 comes to mind) also began to improve the lot of the common man.
I did not allege oppression at all.
Irish independence did not come about due to any social conditions. Oppression certainly occurred to some extent in the 18th century, but it was on religious rather than ethnic grounds, and it also affected some Protestants, as I'm sure you know.
By the time of 1916, the push for independence came about largely in response to Conservative and Unionist attempts to block Home Rule. The Home Rule movement originally started c. 1870. By 1916, 45 years had passed, frustration was understandably growing.
Irish people only wanted control of internal affairs. By and large, they were happy to remain as citizens of the UK. The govts of the time failed the Irish people, and they failed the UK in general.
There is nothing wrong with my original statement 'the previous union was not an equal one - we were always the poor relation'.
Focus was naturally directed towards London. But why should Irish people have to put up with that? Are they not as equally entitled to want focus on Dublin? Like I said, Home Rule would have been enough for most Irish people. But when reasonable requests are repeatedly denied, it leads to frustration.
My original post was this
Even with all the fuck-ups our country has made, at least they are OUR fuck-ups. That does make a difference. Its about having the dignity of being able to make our own decisions, for our own benefit. Rather than having decisions made for us, with the aim of benefitting the next island across the water.
Logically, there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a union between the two islands. Carried out correctly and in a fair way, it would probably be a good idea and mutually beneficial to the two islands. However, the previous union was not an equal one - we were always the poor relation (I'm not shouting oppression here), and it originally came about through the barrel of a gun.
There is a lot to be said for gaining independence, and it is something we should be proud of. The mistakes and wrong-doings that have occurred in this country are not even 10% as bad as what happened in other countries in the same period. Thats not to excuse the mistakes at all.
If Ireland had remained within the UK, it would probably be like Scotland and Wales. To which I would have to say 'no thanks'.
I did not claim oppression in that post. The reference to the gun was a fair one. Britains military strength also helped it to control Ireland. That is not meant as an insult.
The post-indepedence slump was probably due to a number of factors
-our own prolonged economic incompetence, conservatism and church-enforced backwardness.
-international factors, ww2 and the lasting effects of isolation caused by neutrality.
I have tried to address this issue as honestly as I can. I previously stated that I would not be opposed in principle to a union of the two islands. But I know that it would not be to our benefit, and it would not be acceptable here. That should be difficult for anyone to understand. British people would not accept a situation where they were worse off either.
It is not about hatred or anything of the sort. Nor is it about any perceived victimhood.
The social revolution in Ireland occurred long before the political one, therefore it is false for anyone to try to claim social oppression as a reason for the break up of the union. the reason was entirely political in my opinion.
But WASP, I never claimed oppression. I can not speak for anyone else.
