4 ms·

But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice. Arguably Sc

by hetman 10y ago

But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice. Arguably Scotland benefited from this change in the UK's public opinion as a result of Ireland, without having to go through the same process.

gsnedders 10y ago
> But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice. I think that's an oversimplification; the intent was there to give Ireland self-governance from the 1880s (initially as a single, unified area). Notably, the Government of Ireland Act 1914, better known as the Third Home Rule Bill (the prior two had failed to pass through Parliament) would've led to a unitary Ireland, though this led to the Home Rule Crisis (though there had been some rioting going back to the 1880s) and was ultimately never implemented due to the outbreak of war. The real fatal errors in the case of Ireland were the handling of the Easter Rising of 1916 and the coupling of implementation of Home Rule with conscription in Ireland, along with many more errors during the guerrilla war that followed. Had WW1 not happened when it did, who knows what would have happened in Ireland.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  That's a pretty charitable assessment. The 19th century saw England enact a policy of near genocide, mass deportation and political/economic oppression. Ireland was little different than any other third world colony.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    Oh, the UK completely fucked over Ireland, there's little doubt about that, despite legally being in a far better place than the colonies (they actually had representation, most obviously) they practically weren't. The question is whether bloodshed was inevitable in the path to independence, and I don't think it's reasonable to call the actions of the state bloodshed on that path except when it was in direct suppression of it (and I don't think there was any of that prior to the Easter Rising, unless one considers the rebellion of 1798 when Ireland was still legally a separate country, though had had the same ruler as England since the 12th century, albeit with a separate political structure). Certainly the blood on the UK's hands led to many of the calls for independence, but if independence had been granted in, e.g., 1886 (i.e., the First Home Rule Bill) would it be freedom through bloodshed, or would it be freedom through wanting to do better yourselves? I'd definitely say the latter.
- flukus 10y ago
  If history has taught us anything since then it's that slow decolonization is a much better idea than a quick one.
  - vacri 10y ago
    The British control of Ireland was more 'occupation' than 'colonisation'.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Is there a big difference? In general I'd say colonization is more genocidy, but so was the occupation of Ireland. They even setup plantations, etc.
      - vacri 10y ago
        To clarify what I meant a bit - Ireland was already part of Europe, and there were Irish scholars, Catholicism was there, they traded with Europe and were familiar with European norms and traditions. The culture that England forced on Ireland was not all that much different to what was already in place. I imagine, though, that opinion on the two terms depends on what you think of 'colonisation' as.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  As an Irish person I couldn't help but burst out laughing at this interpretation of history. There was certainly a desire for self-government in Ireland expressed in the English parliament back then, but it was very much a political football between the Tories (who were dead against it) and the Liberals (who didn't care for the Irish particularly but liked the underlying principle) which enabled Parnell to act as a power-broker for a few years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell) I really don't think it's reasonable to say that the 1998 plebiscite was the culmination of a century long effort by the UK to grant Ireland her independence; the late 19th Century just marks the period where it began to be considered a fit subject for parliamentary debate.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    Oh, I certainly didn't mean to imply there was a century long effort! Essentially what I'm contending is whether they ever had a genuine choice prior to 1998, and I'd strongly suggest that the Third Home Rule Bill was that—though, had WW1 not happened, whether it would've avoided most of the bloodshed is inherently unclear, especially given the 1886 Belfast riots and the unwillingness to compromise on what was really all three sides. As for the political football, there's no denying it was—but that's true of many things in Westminster, both around the turn of the 19th/20th century and today.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      I agree that trying to figure out alternate timelines in which WW1 didn't take place can be little other than guesswork.
peteretep 10y ago
> Northern Ireland _is_ an > example of freedom through > bloodshed ... > the UK conceded to give them > genuine choice This is non-historic. Northern Ireland resisted unification with Ireland, opting out of home rule, given the choice. 35% of the population were Catholic only, and its not unreasonable to simplify to say that the rest wanted to remain part of the UK. Were one to hold a refendum today about joining Ireland, you might expect a near-enough split vote. The idea that Great Britain were somehow wedded to the idea of keeping Northern Ireland welded to the rest of it against the will of the people is simply factually incorrect. Until recently there were a lot of armed people on both sides of that question with the majority in NI wanting to stay part of the UK. Britain's treatment of Ireland was a car crash over the previous few centuries, but the narrative that it was resisting the popular will of the people by keeping it in the UK is simply wrong.

by hetman 10y ago

gsnedders 10y ago

> But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice. I think that's an oversimplification; the intent was there to give Ireland self-governance from the 1880s (initially as a single, unified area). Notably, the Government of Ireland Act 1914, better known as the Third Home Rule Bill (the prior two had failed to pass through Parliament) would've led to a unitary Ireland, though this led to the Home Rule Crisis (though there had been some rioting going back to the 1880s) and was ultimately never implemented due to the outbreak of war. The real fatal errors in the case of Ireland were the handling of the Easter Rising of 1916 and the coupling of implementation of Home Rule with conscription in Ireland, along with many more errors during the guerrilla war that followed. Had WW1 not happened when it did, who knows what would have happened in Ireland.

Spooky23 10y ago
That's a pretty charitable assessment. The 19th century saw England enact a policy of near genocide, mass deportation and political/economic oppression. Ireland was little different than any other third world colony.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  Oh, the UK completely fucked over Ireland, there's little doubt about that, despite legally being in a far better place than the colonies (they actually had representation, most obviously) they practically weren't. The question is whether bloodshed was inevitable in the path to independence, and I don't think it's reasonable to call the actions of the state bloodshed on that path except when it was in direct suppression of it (and I don't think there was any of that prior to the Easter Rising, unless one considers the rebellion of 1798 when Ireland was still legally a separate country, though had had the same ruler as England since the 12th century, albeit with a separate political structure). Certainly the blood on the UK's hands led to many of the calls for independence, but if independence had been granted in, e.g., 1886 (i.e., the First Home Rule Bill) would it be freedom through bloodshed, or would it be freedom through wanting to do better yourselves? I'd definitely say the latter.
flukus 10y ago
If history has taught us anything since then it's that slow decolonization is a much better idea than a quick one.
- vacri 10y ago
  The British control of Ireland was more 'occupation' than 'colonisation'.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Is there a big difference? In general I'd say colonization is more genocidy, but so was the occupation of Ireland. They even setup plantations, etc.
    - vacri 10y ago
      To clarify what I meant a bit - Ireland was already part of Europe, and there were Irish scholars, Catholicism was there, they traded with Europe and were familiar with European norms and traditions. The culture that England forced on Ireland was not all that much different to what was already in place. I imagine, though, that opinion on the two terms depends on what you think of 'colonisation' as.
anigbrowl 10y ago
As an Irish person I couldn't help but burst out laughing at this interpretation of history. There was certainly a desire for self-government in Ireland expressed in the English parliament back then, but it was very much a political football between the Tories (who were dead against it) and the Liberals (who didn't care for the Irish particularly but liked the underlying principle) which enabled Parnell to act as a power-broker for a few years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell) I really don't think it's reasonable to say that the 1998 plebiscite was the culmination of a century long effort by the UK to grant Ireland her independence; the late 19th Century just marks the period where it began to be considered a fit subject for parliamentary debate.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  Oh, I certainly didn't mean to imply there was a century long effort! Essentially what I'm contending is whether they ever had a genuine choice prior to 1998, and I'd strongly suggest that the Third Home Rule Bill was that—though, had WW1 not happened, whether it would've avoided most of the bloodshed is inherently unclear, especially given the 1886 Belfast riots and the unwillingness to compromise on what was really all three sides. As for the political football, there's no denying it was—but that's true of many things in Westminster, both around the turn of the 19th/20th century and today.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I agree that trying to figure out alternate timelines in which WW1 didn't take place can be little other than guesswork.

peteretep 10y ago

> Northern Ireland _is_ an > example of freedom through > bloodshed ... > the UK conceded to give them > genuine choice This is non-historic. Northern Ireland resisted unification with Ireland, opting out of home rule, given the choice. 35% of the population were Catholic only, and its not unreasonable to simplify to say that the rest wanted to remain part of the UK. Were one to hold a refendum today about joining Ireland, you might expect a near-enough split vote. The idea that Great Britain were somehow wedded to the idea of keeping Northern Ireland welded to the rest of it against the will of the people is simply factually incorrect. Until recently there were a lot of armed people on both sides of that question with the majority in NI wanting to stay part of the UK. Britain's treatment of Ireland was a car crash over the previous few centuries, but the narrative that it was resisting the popular will of the people by keeping it in the UK is simply wrong.