NotThePars Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 that or we could just shoot everyone at Westminster, descend into civil war and see how that goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete's Frontier Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The influence and power of the RC church has certainly waned hugely in Ireland, this is proof positive of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Ironic this happens the same day as the Apprentice bigots marching through Glasgow celibrating "freedom from oppression" whilst the Protestant leaders in the north are homophobic scum. Sure? I heard they were very happy to celebrate the Irish vote... King Billy after all played for both Celtic and Rangers in a manner of speaking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Is it just me that thinks 60 odd percent is quite low?Both the turnout and the majority seemed smaller than I was expecting, perhaps I underestimate the quantity of lunatics in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Is it just me that thinks 60 odd percent is quite low? Compared to what? 70 odd per cent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Whilst Ireland follows Scotland's progressive lead (albeit we correctly bypassed any referendum process), let's compare and contrast with their northerly neighbours: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/04/27/northern-ireland-assembly-rejects-same-sex-marriage/ http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/27/jim-wells-resigns-northern-ireland-health-minister The Failed Statelet The three Ulster constituencies were in the top 5 for No vote percentages so backwardness on this seems to cross the border to a certain extent. It's unfortunate for NI that a fringe religious denomination with 15,000 members has managed to shape the social policy of what in recent years has been the main Unionist party. Give it a few years and that particular bizarre scenario will slowly correct itself. Think it's noteworthy that the only sitting DUP MP to lose his seat at the general election was the only one to be a Free Presbyterian clergyman. Jim Wells homophobic antics may well have also cost the DUP a victory in Belfast South where they lost narrowly to the SDLP given its probably the most socially liberal constituency in NI. Political parties quickly mend their ways when they see it is costing them seats at Westminster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Ireland's history since independence has been rife with corruption, abuse of children in homes and single mothers, sheltering terrorists, persecution of Jews and the most feeble welfare system in Europe. To be fair, Ireland was considerably worse off - in every sense - when it was a full constituent nation of the UK, governed from London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 ^^^debatable, try reading up on the real history rather than the myths. For example, what you don't get told in the preferred narrative nowadays is what London did on railway construction and rural housing in the decades immediately prior to the Home Rule crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Sure, they got a more efficient rail service and postal network out of the deal, as well as a more orderly civil administration, but over a million non-mythical people starved to death while their food crops were exported and sold through the London exchanges, and circa 3 million were forced to emigrate by famine, poverty, and political oppression. Under the long period of British rule the population declined from around 8 million to 4 million. Not a sign of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 You are moving the goal posts. In the post I responded to you were claiming "considerably worse off - in every sense". Even during the famine contrary to the myths that get pedaled London actually did make an effort (not as big a one as it should have I'll readily agree) to supply food that was possibly greater than a Dublin administration would have been able to achieve on its own without the benefit of a global empire to draw from and with the failure of the staple diet crop on its hands and a largely agricultural economy to generate revenues from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 You are moving the goal posts. In the post I responded to you were claiming "considerably worse off - in every sense". Even during the famine contrary to the myths that get pedaled London actually did make an effort (not as big a one as it should have I'll readily agree) to supply food that was possibly greater than a Dublin administration would have been able to achieve on its own without the benefit of a global empire to draw from and with the failure of the staple diet crop on its hands and a largely agricultural economy to generate revenues from. Really? It's a damn sight more than they did for the Highlanders and our own potato famine. Made it easier to pack us off to the colonies, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 It's a damn sight more than they did for the Highlanders and our own potato famine. Wheesht. You are not allowed to mention that vast numbers of Scots, Norwegians and Swedes migrated due to crop failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMDP Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Does anyone know if them having a referendum is anything to do with the written constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Does anyone know if them having a referendum is anything to do with the written constitution? I think it was everything to do with their constitution. IE a constitutional changes requires a plebiscite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenal till I die Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Doubt it, Ireland's history since independence has been rife with corruption, abuse of children in homes and single mothers, sheltering terrorists, persecution of Jews and the most feeble welfare system in Europe. The only thing to save it was joining the EU which they've plundered for every Euro they can, and even got bitchy when even poorer countries wanted to join. Even so the EU bailed them out when their greed overtook them and they went bankrupt. I very much hope that Ireland won't be the template for Scottish independence. Hence the pessimism part of my post. Is it time those of us who support Scottish independence get involved in Irish politics more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Hence the pessimism part of my post. Is it time those of us who support Scottish independence get involved in Irish politics more? How do you propose going about that? Edinburgh knows better than Dublin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 In the post I responded to you were claiming "considerably worse off - in every sense". Even during the famine contrary to the myths that get pedaled London actually did make an effort (not as big a one as it should have I'll readily agree) to supply food that was possibly greater than a Dublin administration would have been able to achieve on its own without the benefit of a global empire to draw from and with the failure of the staple diet crop on its hands and a largely agricultural economy to generate revenues from. I don't want to derail the thread with an essentially pointless famine debate, but can you tell me if the amount of food relief reluctantly and tardily supplied by London was greater or lesser than the amount of food that Ireland was forced to export to London throughout the famine years? Did they get more out of the Union than they put in? (Pro-Tip: No one does.) The potato crop failed, but the country still produced huge quantities of eggs, cereals, meat, and fish - enough to feed the (already reduced) population, or at least enough to have greatly reduced the acute death toll during those years. The problem wasn't a lack of food - it rarely has been in post-1800 famines. The problem was that nearly all the food got loaded onto ships, exported, and sold. Would a Dublin administration have allowed that? "There is such a tendency to exaggeration and inaccuracy in Irish reports that delay in acting on them is always desirable" - Sir Robert Peel, British Prime Minister. Hard to imagine an Irishman feeling the same way somehow. India got railways and a postal service out of British rule too, but they weren't intended for the benefit of Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Wheesht. You are not allowed to mention that vast numbers of Scots, Norwegians and Swedes migrated due to crop failure. Something Sevco fans seem to forget when they sing the Famine song or talk of 'tattie munchers'. Like we're so fckn different?! Anyway, on topic. See Westboro Baptists have got on board.... Bonnie Greer @Bonn1eGreer 8 hrs8 hours ago #Westboro Baptist Church try flying flag of #Ireland upside down. "Jaysus- what did Ivory Coast do?"-@ronanodowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I don't want to derail the thread with an essentially pointless famine debate, ... Then why post anything after these words? The original post I responded to was the notion that what eventually became the RoI was worse off in every sense as part of the Union. Looking at it rationally it's simply not true. It wasn't until EEC entry in the 1970s that they were able to finally start to undo the damage inflicted by separation by entering a new form of political and economic union with the rUK (in 1921 terms) and finding a new source of external subsidy to fund the building of infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Including all the ones that had to leave and move to places like Castlemilk on the mainland because the Free State and then the RoI were an economic basket case? They prized economic well-being over living in an independent state. With a British welfare state in place and better access to the UK market for their industries more of them would have been able to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.