Ireland becomes more British

67th Tigers

Banned
I believe that:

3) 67th Tigers, you are talking utter bullshit about British identity being manufactured in the 30s. Consider the facts:

Throughout the 19th Century, there was not enough seperatism in Scotland to even be seriously talked about (a golden time...:D)

Scotland has never thought of itself as being in the least bit English. Sadly, in fact, we often define ourselves solely in opposition to you lot.

So what the shitcakes was our identity in the 19th century?

I am glad you have your beliefs. However, you should disambiguate facts, beliefs and opinions; they are three different things.

The "British" construct was a 1930's reaction to rising Scots nationalism. Rather than using "English" as the collective noun, Scots nationalists sought another term that would separate Scots from non-Scots; that term was the collective noun "British", allowing them to create "the English" south of the border. Language changes, and has changed here; that is a fact.

I have the opinion you can't shift your point of view to that of a 19th century citizen, who lived in a very different world; nor can I really for that matter. However, their opinions and beliefs were very different from our contemporaries.
 
I am glad you have your beliefs. However, you should disambiguate facts, beliefs and opinions; they are three different things.

I think my facts are both verifiable. If seperatism existed in the 19th century, where were its MPs? If Scotland considered itself England in the 19th century, why the maintainance of laws? Regiments? The petition to end the use of the term "England" to mean "Great Britain"?

The "British" construct was a 1930's reaction to rising Scots nationalism. Rather than using "English" as the collective noun, Scots nationalists sought another term that would separate Scots from non-Scots; that term was the collective noun "British", allowing them to create "the English" south of the border. Language changes, and has changed here; that is a fact.

You're not even being internally consistant. Sentence one calls it reaction to the nats (nationalism was rising in the 30s? Germinating, maybe, but where were the MPs?), sentence 2 a creation of the nats. As proven by that petition I mentioned, "English" had not been the collective noun, as far as we were concerned, in the 19th century (other things to consider here are Bute's North Briton or, come to that "North Britain" and "South Britain" full stop).

Are you suggesting that not only British but also English and Scottish national identity and terminology did not exist before the 30s? That's what "another term" to "seperate Scots from non-Scots" and "create England" sound like. So what were we all? Germans and Irishmen? Saxons and Picts? Brythons and Goidoils?

I have the opinion you can't shift your point of view to that of a 19th century citizen, who lived in a very different world; nor can I really for that matter. However, their opinions and beliefs were very different from our contemporaries.

Obviously, but we can use evidence and sources to make extremely accurate guesses as to those opinions, and if we deny the value of any information derived from sources rather than experience, the study of history is a bit useless.

All relevent British sources I can think of or on my side of the debate. Care to name yours?

Oh, also, answer my question. You have completely failed to answer my question.
 


What are they?

Seriously, any. It's too wide a field. "Stuff concerning Scotland, or indeed Britain, between the years of 1707 and 1930". Also, italics are best reserves for greater effect.

Well, let's start with the existence of the Scottish Labour Party, which I was researching earlier today. 1888-1893, a Scottish organisation which used Scottish in its name.

Or the thing I mentioned earlier, the "North Britain" and "South Britain" monikers, and Bute's Briton. The formal designation of the British Army, with its illustrious Scottish and English components, as the "British Army" since well before 1930. The use of term "British Empire".

Seriously, anything. I'll be impressed if I find something which suggests that the terms Scotland and Britain were not used before '30.
 
Lets face it religous prejudice is at the root of a lot of the problems that Ireland experienced during British rule. And it is still at the core of the troubles today. And the prejudice is on both sides of the issue. Concering the Great Famine and some of the relief efforts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine

Quaker Alfred Webb, one of the many volunteers in Ireland at the time, wrote:
“ Upon the famine arose the wide spread system of proselytism ... and a network of well-intentioned Protestant associations spread over the poorer parts of the country, which in return for soup and other help endeavoured to gather the people into their churches and schools...The movement left seeds of bitterness that have not yet died out, and Protestants, and not altogether excluding Friends, sacrificed much of the influence for good they might have had..."[70]
Things like that didn't help
 
Lets face it religous prejudice is at the root of a lot of the problems that Ireland experienced during British rule. And it is still at the core of the troubles today. And the prejudice is on both sides of the issue.
It's not so much about mutual prejudice as it is about supremacy, one side had all the rights, the other side had none.
It would be beside the point to say in that in apartheid South Africa both blacks and whites were racially prejudiced towards eachother, it's irrelevant to the blacks exactly who has taken their rights away, just the fact that they've been taken makes them enemies.
Whether it's racial or religous, both of these great divides are caused by subordination enforced by one group, not by a mutual hatred.
 
Last edited:
Lets face it religous prejudice is at the root of a lot of the problems that Ireland experienced during British rule. And it is still at the core of the troubles today. And the prejudice is on both sides of the issue. Concering the Great Famine and some of the relief efforts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine

Quaker Alfred Webb, one of the many volunteers in Ireland at the time, wrote:
“ Upon the famine arose the wide spread system of proselytism ... and a network of well-intentioned Protestant associations spread over the poorer parts of the country, which in return for soup and other help endeavoured to gather the people into their churches and schools...The movement left seeds of bitterness that have not yet died out, and Protestants, and not altogether excluding Friends, sacrificed much of the influence for good they might have had..."[70]
Things like that didn't help

Obviously such attitudes did hamper the relief effort and sow seeds of bitterness which were to grow into sectarian violence (although I believe that the importance of religion to the whole question since 1825 can be, and is, exagerrated), but they also show that there was, in fact, a relief effort, thus confirming what I've been saying: Britain did not want anyone to starve. There was a relief effort, but its good intentions were caught up in bungling, slowness, and stuff like this.
 
It's not so much about mutual prejudice as it is about supremacy, one side had all the rights, the other side had none.
It would be beside the point to say in that in apartheid South Africa both blacks and whites were racially prejudiced towards eachother, it's irrelevant to the blacks exactly who has taken their rights away, just the fact that they've been taken makes them enemies.
Whether it's racial or religous, both of these great divides are caused by subordination enforced by one group, not by a mutual hatred.

Okay, few things:

1) "Protestant supremacy" died in 1825. That's not to say that Irish Catholics weren't in a difficult social, economic and political position, but comparing any system to Apartheid is some charge. For the Kingdom of Ireland system, quite possible a valid one, but not after. If Irish Catholics had no rights, how did they manage to vote and stand as MPs?

2) To be perfectly honest, in a system which, to what ever extent, puts power in the hands of a minority, it is quite likely that there will be a lot of unfair prejudice against them, which is understandable but that doesn't make it right. There was plenty of "mutual prejudice" which boiled over into mutual brutality during the war of independence, and the legacy of which we still see today over in Norn Iron.
 
I'm sure I read somewhere that the Irish fostered their sense of strong Catholicism partly from opposition to the English in the early stages of the Reformation and the years afterwards. If this were true, it would put question marks over whether England staying Catholic would really solve the problem,
and whether religion is the key issue here anyway. Personally, I tend to see the Irish "disloyalty" as the result of English dominion anyway. To my mind, if you want to foster Irish loyalty you need to spirit away the early beliefs in the inferiority of Irish culture, which affected English policy for years to come, and would take some doing. After doing that, you need to find a way to make Ireland be treated less as a territory and more as an autonomous kingdom, almost (but probably not entirely) on equal terms with England.
 
1) "Protestant supremacy" died in 1825. That's not to say that Irish Catholics weren't in a difficult social, economic and political position, but comparing any system to Apartheid is some charge. For the Kingdom of Ireland system, quite possible a valid one, but not after. If Irish Catholics had no rights, how did they manage to vote and stand as MPs?

2) To be perfectly honest, in a system which, to what ever extent, puts power in the hands of a minority, it is quite likely that there will be a lot of unfair prejudice against them, which is understandable but that doesn't make it right. There was plenty of "mutual prejudice" which boiled over into mutual brutality during the war of independence, and the legacy of which we still see today over in Norn Iron.

1) Protestant supremacy did not die in 1825, it was altered and lessened in 1825, in Southern Ireland it died in 1921, in the North it died only recently, with the first power share government the country's ever had. Prejudice there has not disappeared of course, but the fighting has died down because the footing is now equal.

2) I think you're ignoring the Unionist creed (much more significant than protestant beliefs in the question of Ireland), which states that Ireland remain a colony of Britain, subordinate to her rule. It's this creed, and the mindset that goes with it, which enforced and reinforced prejudice, not the other way around.

3) The right to vote and stand for parliament are only two basic civil liberties, and particularly useless if the voting constituencies have been engineered to prevent one side from gaining power altogether, as was the case in Northern Ireland.

4) The WOI was first and foremost a rising against occupying forces, and while prejudiced brutalities did occur they were not characteristic. It was the above-mentioned gerrymandering of constituencies which happened after the war, among other things, that contributed to the legacy of Northern Ireland, not the said brutalities.
 
Last edited:
1) Protestant supremacy did not die in 1825, it was altered and lessened in 1825, in Southern Ireland it died in 1921, in the North it died only recently, with the first power share government the country's ever had. Prejudice there has not disappeared of course, but the fighting has died down because the footing is now equal.

I am not using protestant supremacy to mean the economically advantages position of the Anglo-Irish landlors .It should be noted that in 1825, the Presbytarian inhabitants of Ulster were not economically, politically, or socially advantaged. The industrial revolution reaching them first, and the way their situation was used by Unionist politicians ("Fight and be right!") was all to come later.

I am using it in the historically correct sense, to mean the system whereby the Anglo-Irish landowners had all the rights, the Presbytarians some rights, and the Catholics no rights. This is the "Apartheid-like" system to which you refer, and was abolished in 1825.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Protestant Supremacy continued through the troubles at a time when the British government acted to guarantee the social, civil, and political righst of all its Catholic citizens. Seriously, when you can be elected to parliament despite being anti-parliamentary, you have plenty of rights. To say that the fair electoral majority of "Protestant" parties is "Protestant Supremacy" is like saying that America is an Apartheid system because most Congressmen are white.

2) I think you're ignoring the Unionist creed (much more significant than protestant beliefs in the question of Ireland), which states that Ireland remain a colony of Britain, subordinate to her rule. It's this creed, and the mindset that goes with it, which enforced and reinforced prejudice, not the other way around.

That wasn't the Unionist creed at all. The Unionist creed was, and with reference to Norn Iron is, that Ireland is an integral part of Britain. The difference? Rights. Citizens of an integral part of Britain could vote (which 19th century Irishmen could) and stand for election (which 19th century Irishmen could), which is more tha can be said for, say, Kenyans. The 19th-century unionists considered themselves Irishmen as well as Britons. The idea of Ireland being ruled colonially, according to a special settlement placing a small elite in charge, was Protestant Supremacy and the union in 1801 was an effort to stamp it out when the events of '98 made it obvious to people in Great Britain how backward and counterproductive the rule of our compatriots in Ireland was.
 
3) The right to vote and stand for parliament are only two basic civil liberties, and particularly useless if the voting constituencies have been engineered to prevent one side from gaining power altogether, as was the case in Northern Ireland.

How we generally operate here is by making new posts. It makes debates easier for other people to follow. That said:

1) If these were only "two basic civil liberties", which civil liberties were being denied?

2) You speak asthough "gerrymandering" was the only thing keeping nationalist parties from power. What kept nationalist parties from power was the Unionist majority of citizens. Certainly the popular vote and the seats did not correspond perfectly. This is the FPTP system, and we endure it here on the mainland, too. It had carried elections, and has indeed carried a pro-home-rule party into power.

4) The WOI was first and foremost a rising against occupying forces, and while prejudiced brutalities did occur they were not characteristic. It was the above-mentioned gerrymandering of constituencies which happened after the war, among other things, that contributed to the legacy of Northern Ireland, not the said brutalities.

1) You are clearly using "occupying forces" in a biased fashion which does not have anything to do with the legal meaning of the term.

2) Your imply that the various terrorist factions were right to use violence to try and achieve their aims because of your so-called "gerrymander". Violence is never right where democracy is an option and this is why I abhor terrorism, Unionist or Nationalist.

3) I never implied that the Blacks and Tans or some murdered Protestants in Munster caused the troubles. That's putting words into my mouth.

You have also failed to address many of my arguments, in particular my explanation of why your portrayal of the "Unionist Creed" was bunk.
 
Last edited:
1) If these were only "two basic civil liberties", which civil liberties were being denied?
I suggest you read some Irish history. You've heard of Bloody Sunday right? You know it took place during a civil rights march in 1972, what were they marching for in particular? They already had the right to vote and stand for parliament. Look it up and see what you find.

You speak asthough "gerrymandering" was the only thing keeping nationalist parties from power. What kept nationalist parties from power was the Unionist majority of citizens.
I believe I said "among other things" in the same sentence, I brought up gerrymandering to illustrate how useless the right to vote was for Catholics in Northern Ireland, which you offered as a sign of equality.
And the border of Northern Ireland itself, as well as the internal constituency borders, were designed to give the protestants an unshakable majority. The electorate was essentially corrupted, and not "fair" as you've tried to imply. This is not a disputed fact.

1) You are clearly using "occupying forces" in a biased fashion which does not have anything to do with the legal meaning of the term.
What? I mean it in the sense of the British Army, how does the term occupying forces not apply? And how was my statement biased in any way? If you're trying to imply that the British Army had a right to be there, for whatever reason, then I assume you believe Imperialism in general was righteous, and I wonder what is the point of digging yourself a hole like that?

3) I never implied that the Blacks and Tans or some murdered Protestants in Munster caused the troubles. That's putting words into my mouth.
you said:
There was plenty of "mutual prejudice" which boiled over into mutual brutality during the war of independence, and the legacy of which we still see today over in Norn Iron.
It is ludicrous to suggest that Protestant Supremacy continued through the troubles at a time when the British government acted to guarantee the social, civil, and political righst of all its Catholic citizens. Seriously, when you can be elected to parliament despite being anti-parliamentary, you have plenty of rights. To say that the fair electoral majority of "Protestant" parties is "Protestant Supremacy" is like saying that America is an Apartheid system because most Congressmen are white.
That whole statement is total crap, and exhibits a level of ignorance which has killed this debate for me, as have your comments about terrorism. To draw a moral distinction between state violence and violence against the state makes no sense whatsoever. It's one thing to believe in and support state power, I've no problem with that, it's another thing altogether to convince yourself that you're absolutely "right" in doing so.
And your interpretation of unionist creed, that "Ireland is an integral part of Britain" essentially amounts to the same thing as mine, it just refers less to how that integration works in practice.

Anyway I don't think we're going to reach a common understanding about this, which pains me, but I guess this issue will keep popping up until one naturally develops over time.
 
Last edited:
I suggest you read some Irish history. You've heard of Bloody Sunday right? You know it took place during a civil rights march in 1972, what were they marching for in particular? They already had the right to vote and stand for parliament. Look it up and see what you find.

This is not an answer to my question. You have not stated which civil rights, if any, the Catholics were denied. You have essentially states that if some of them thought their rights were being denied, that made it true.

It's a civil right to not get shot, certainly. Bloody Sunday was a tremendous tragedy for everybody concerned, but especially the dead and their families. But things happen. Toney Blair was right when he said the difference between a democracy (and in my definition of democracy I include civil rights for all citizens) and a non-democracy is not that bad things never happen, but that when they do they are condemned, investigated, and prevented from happening again.

I believe I said "among other things" in the same sentence, I brought up gerrymandering to illustrate how useless the right to vote was for Catholics in Northern Ireland, which you offered as a sign of equality.

You said the "gerrymander" "among other things" caused the Troubles, not that it, "among other things" prevented the Nationalists from gaining power. You also seem to be dodging the issue that the (slim) majority of Northern Irish were and are Unionist.

And the border of Northern Ireland itself, as well as the internal constituency borders, were designed to give the protestants an unshakable majority. The electorate was essentially corrupted, and not "fair" as you've tried to imply. This is not a disputed fact.

I can prove you wrong there, by disputing it. NI is six counties, the boundaries of which have been the same since... some time, anyway. While I know that there is some controversy about Fermanagh and Tyrone, but the fact is that in several of the ancient counties of Ireland a majority of people wished to remain in the United Kingdom. Forcing them to accept Irish sovereignty would be no better than forcing southern Ireland to accept British sovereignty.

What? I mean it in the sense of the British Army, how does the term occupying forces not apply? And how was my statement biased in any way? If you're trying to imply that the British Army had a right to be there, for whatever reason, then I assume you believe Imperialism in general was righteous, and I wonder what is the point of digging yourself a hole like that?

Occupying forces is a legal definition. How Ireland came to be part of the United Kingdom is of course a long and troubled topic and to be frank brushing a process which began in the Middle Ages off as "imperialism" is a knee-jerk oversimplification. However in 1920 it was a legal part of the United Kingdom in which the citizens were able to use, had used their votes to secure peaceful, democratic independence. This certainly does not make the presence of British troops an "occupation" in any legal sense whatever.

you said:

By that comment I ment that both seperate conflicts were the result of the poison of sectarianism, not that the one was a direct consequence of the other.

That whole statement is total crap, and exhibits a level of ignorance which has killed this debate for me, as have your comments about terrorism. To draw a moral distinction between state violence and violence against the state makes no sense whatsoever. It's one thing to believe in and support state power, I've no problem with that, it's another thing altogether to convince yourself that you're absolutely "right" in doing so.

What "state violence" is this? Terrible mistakes like Bloody Sunday will always occur, but the aim of the British (and Irish) states was to prevent violence in order to uphold civil rights and allow the proper functioning of democracy. I can sure as hell draw a moral distinction between that and the cowardly murder practiced by the likes of the UVF and IRA.

And your interpretation of unionist creed, that "Ireland is an integral part of Britain" essentially amounts to the same thing, it just refers less to how that integration works in practice.

I would have deeply disgreed with any Unionist who would have tred to prevent the dmeocratic wishes of Ireland using force. However there is an obvious distinction between imperialism which is wanting to rule the lands of others and unionism which was a choice taken by Irish people under self-determination, that is, a choice on how there own home was to be ruled.

Anyway I don't think we're going to reach a common understanding about this, which pains me, but I guess this issue will keep popping up until one naturally develops over time.

I see what I believe are untruths and I attempt to correct them.
 
And the border of Northern Ireland itself, as well as the internal constituency borders, were designed to give the protestants an unshakable majority. The electorate was essentially corrupted, and not "fair" as you've tried to imply. This is not a disputed fact.
Of course it was. That is a GOOD thing.
The border was designed to keep British only areas which were overwhelmingly in favour of it.
As said they did stick to county lines though they made sure to only chose those contiguous (there were some areas in S.Ireland which would have preferred to be British but would be cut off) counties that wanted it.
 
I

The "British" construct was a 1930's reaction to rising Scots nationalism. Rather than using "English" as the collective noun, Scots nationalists sought another term that would separate Scots from non-Scots; that term was the collective noun "British", allowing them to create "the English" south of the border. Language changes, and has changed here; that is a fact.

Is this "1930s" a typo??? This is just pure BS otherwise. And BS even if you meant 1830s.

You seem to have first of all changed your story from this being about Ireland to this being about Scotland. Ireland was a separate realm in the 18th century, not part of Great Britain. But according to you AFTER the act of Union the idea of a separate Irish identity emerges. Hmmmm,
 
Last edited:
i think a revision of the OP is in order. it should be along the lines of: how do you get to an ireland in which, if the situation arises, the majority of all irish people vote to stay part of britain, or whatever the collective structure calls itself. this should be a free and fair vote, with no violence on either side.
 
i think a revision of the OP is in order. it should be along the lines of: how do you get to an ireland in which, if the situation arises, the majority of all irish people vote to stay part of britain, or whatever the collective structure calls itself. this should be a free and fair vote, with no violence on either side.

If there was no Cromwell? And no plantation? And no further antagonism?
If they intermingled like the vikings did?!
Basically altering the nature of Britishness itself, or Irishness I suppose, to make them more docile.
I think the difference between the two is too great to make it workable.
 
Top