On April 24, 1916, 1000-1500 Irish patriots rose up in rebellion against British rule of Ireland, seizing large parts of the capital city. This Dublin Rising was perhaps the most important event in modern Irish history as it soon led to the emergence of a popularly elected Irish government which demanded independence. Since it was mentioned in another thread (in a derogatory manner by someone who flies an Irish flag), I thought I'd give a brief overview of the Rising.
First, the military achievement of the Rising was remarkable. 1000-1500 Irish volunteers with rudimentary military training and armed only with antiquated rifles, shotguns, pistols and a few homemade bombs faced down regular British army units which outnumbered them at least 10:1 for 5 days. The British, though armed with modern rifles, hand grenades and machine guns were unable to break the resistance until they used heavy artillery and a gunboat in the middle of the city. Of course, this resulted in indiscriminate, massive destruction of downtown Dublin. The Rising's commander. Patrick Pearse, decided to surrender at this point to avoid further civilian causalities. Other positions held by the Rebels, though undefeated, followed his orders and capitulated. Despite their inferiority in numbers, equipment and training, the Rebels inflicted 2:1 losses on the British troops. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/insurrection/in03.shtml
The Brits, being Brits, promptly "tried" (in court maritals before British officers with no counsel, right to call witnesses or any other attribute of due process) the "leaders" of the Rebels (though some were hardly that) for treason. 90 death sentences were pronounced though in the end "only" 15 were carried out due to public outrage in Ireland. This brutality helped lead to a sharp swing in public opinion to support of immediate independence of Ireland.
In the next general election in Ireland, Sinn Fein, the party supporting an independent Ireland and with many of their candidates veterans of the Uprising and some still in British prisons, swept away the party which supported "Home Rule" (which would have been a type of limited autonomy inside the Empire). It seems difficult to believe that this would occurred absent the Rising. Of course, British intransigence refused to recognize the wishes of the Irish people and a War of Independence was necessary before the Empire finally relinquished control over most of the island, though they insisted on partitioning 6 counties from the North and thereby denying full Irish freedom.
Given the facts above, was the Dublin Rising morally justified? Why or why not? For the purposes of this discussion, I'll concede that before the Rising the majority of Irishmen would not have supported the idea that armed rebellion to achieve Irish independence was, at the time, necessary.
I'm not sure. Were the Irish being exploited or discriminated against by the Brits, or was the main cause of the uprising mere nationalism? In the latter case, I don't think an armed rebellion would have been justified. In the former case, it may have been. The Scots seem to be doing quite alright under British rule (at least currently), and I don't see why the Irish would not be able to prosper under British rule.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Scots are only doing so well now because, for the past couple of years the SNP have been in power in a devolved parliament. Their ultimate goal is to achieve independence for Scotland and not 'prosper' under British / English rule.
I'm not sure. Were the Irish being exploited or discriminated against by the Brits, or was the main cause of the uprising mere nationalism? In the latter case, I don't think an armed rebellion would have been justified. In the former case, it may have been. The Scots seem to be doing quite alright under British rule (at least currently), and I don't see why the Irish would not be able to prosper under British rule.
The priority here is not prosperity but autonomy. Scotland has always predominantly been a socialist country but has had to capitulate to the wishes of their larger southern neighbour. I'm not sure that I can think of any other democratic country which majorly votes in favour of one political party only to be governed by the opposite. Until devolution, that was the case.
As for the Irish, of course the uprising is justified. The fact that the British retaliated in such a manner (along with all the countless atrocities perpetrated by them through the centuries) just proves the point.
While it is understandable that imperialistic countries will point out all the great benefits of being invaded, oppressed, exploited, etc., I'm sure that the opinions of countries which have been on the receiving end of such behaviour should be considered more valid and valuable.
Originally posted by The SnapperThis is the case in any country. For example, in certain regions of the Netherlands, right-wing extremist fundamentalist christians get a majority of the popular vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party). Does that mean they should get more power in the national parliament or that these regions should strive for independence? Of course not.
The Scots are only doing so well now because, for the past couple of years the SNP have been in power in a devolved parliament. Their ultimate goal is to achieve independence for Scotland and not 'prosper' under British / English rule.
The priority here is not prosperity but autonomy. Scotland has always predominantly been a socialist country but has ha ve been on the receiving end of such behaviour should be considered more valid and valuable.
On a side note, the situation could be improved by changing to a system of proportional representation. For example, in Finland the Swedish People's Party is currently in the ruling coalition, even though only roughly 6% of the population is Swedish-speaking (as a mother tongue).
Originally posted by no1marauderI think you are obviously anti british having read your other posts,
On April 24, 1916, 1000-1500 Irish patriots rose up in rebellion against British rule of Ireland, seizing large parts of the capital city. This Dublin Rising was perhaps the most important event in modern Irish history as it soon led to the emergence of a popularly elected Irish government which demanded independence. Since it was mentioned in another th ...[text shortened]... idea that armed rebellion to achieve Irish independence was, at the time, necessary.
However, you fail to mention that britain had sent its finest men to fight in france against an enemy easily recognised by their uniforms !!!!
Do you think 2 years fighting a formidable foe draining men and resources that Britain would treat a gorrilla terrorist up rising with kid gloves ,???
If they were so heroic why did they wait untill Britain was bogged down in the worst war the world had ever witnessed ?
What is your point any way, bringing all this up along with your other I.R,A posts ?
If you are so pro irish what are you doing sat in the U.S ?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI agree with proportional representation and also think that the population of a country should abide by that country's democratic decisions.
This is the case in any country. For example, in certain regions of the Netherlands, right-wing extremist fundamentalist christians get a majority of the popular vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party). Does that mean they should get more power in the national parliament or that these regions should strive for independence? Of cours ...[text shortened]... lition, even though only roughly 6% of the population is Swedish-speaking (as a mother tongue).
But Scotland is not a region of a country, it is a country in it's own right. Would you argue against the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the subsequent independence of Ukraine, Lithuania, Hungary.etc?
Or would you be happy being governed by a parliament in Brussels or Berlin?
I don't doubt that the Easter Rising was 'justified' (which I take to mean that I condone it), but I have my reservations, too. Those who participated did so if the full and certain knowledge that they would fail.
Home Rule, devolution well short of independence, was on offer at the time, and Nationalist sentiment insufficiently strong in support of full independence. The British government had begun to reverse the egregious transfer of wealth *away* from Ireland and Lloyd George had instituted both pensions and unemployment benefit. (As an aside, the acceleration of the establishment of the Welfare State after WWI could only have added to this trend) Nationalism rarely survives as a simple motivating force for all but a few, but is almost always popularly accompanied by material forces as well.
So my problem is precisely with your caveat: those who participated in the Easter Rising represented a small, hardcore minority of nationalists who took part in an operation they knew would fail, precisely so that its failure and the aftermath would encourage more people to take up the cause of militant nationalism.
At the time, they were no better or worse in their glorification of violence than the butchers running the show in Flanders, but for me personally - although, as I said, ultimately I do condone their actions - there's something a bit morally dubious and certainly unsavoury about their tactics, and the contribution they made to the mythology of Ireland, which is not a purely benign force.
Originally posted by The SnapperBut Scotland is not a region of a country, it is a country in it's own right.
I agree with proportional representation and also think that the population of a country should abide by that country's democratic decisions.
But Scotland is not a region of a country, it is a country in it's own right. Would you argue against the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the subsequent independence of Ukraine, Lithuania, Hungary.etc?
Or would you be happy being governed by a parliament in Brussels or Berlin?
This is clearly a circular argument.
Would you argue against the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the subsequent independence of Ukraine, Lithuania, Hungary.etc?
I don't know. It depends on whether or not the people of those countries would have been better off under Soviet rule. Hungary was never part of the Soviet Union, by the way, although it was a Warschaupact country.
Or would you be happy being governed by a parliament in Brussels or Berlin?
Yes, if it was a good government, why would I have a problem with it?
Originally posted by The SnapperAs a Brit myself, I think that the case of Scotland and the case of Ireland are quite different. I don't think my country has anything to be proud of in terms of its conduct towards Ireland; it was conquered territory, and its people, who had long been ill-treated, had every right to seek self-determination. Also, our desire to hold onto the six northern counties has prolonged to the present day a problem which ought to have been resolved ninety years ago.
I agree with proportional representation and also think that the population of a country should abide by that country's democratic decisions.
But Scotland is not a region of a country, it is a country in it's own right. Would you argue against the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the subsequent independence of Ukraine, Lithuania, Hungary.etc?
Or would you be happy being governed by a parliament in Brussels or Berlin?
Scotland, however, was not conquered by the British. Instead, in 1603, a Scottish king, James VI, inherited the English throne (he became James I of England), thus bringing Scotland and England into personal union. The 1707 Act of Union, which formally joined England and Scotland as the United Kingdom, was passed by the Scottish Parliament as well as the English one (it was, incidentally, unpopular with the general public on both sides of the border). When the Scots rebelled in 1715 and 1745 in support of the claim to the throne of James Edward Stuart, known as the "Old Pretender", they pressed his claim to the crown of the United Kingdom as a whole; they were not fighting for Scottish independence.
The fact that Scotland tends towards the left while England tends towards the right is certainly true, and this did indeed, in the eighties, lead to Scots being governed by a British Conservative Party that held few seats in Scotland; but this is a relatively recent phenomenon. As recently as 1955, the Scottish Unionist Party (as the Conservatives were then known in Scotland) held a majority of Scottish parliamentary seats.
Besides, Britain currently has a Scottish Prime Minister, Gordon Brown; his predecessor, Tony Blair, was educated in Scotland; and Blair's cabinet in 2001 was one quarter Scottish, whereas only 13% of Labour MPs were Scots. Since devolution, some have complained that relatively wealthy English taxpayers are subsidising the greater expenditure on health and education by the devolved parliament in Scotland. Others point to the fact that the English lack a devolved parliament, so Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on matters which will affect only English people, whereas English MPs are not able to vote on matters solely of concern to Scotland.
I don't intend to suggest that Scotland is the only beneficiary here - the union enabled English citizens to benefit from the discovery of North Sea oil, for instance - but the Scots joined the United Kingdom through established parliamentary procedure, and they do better out of it than the Irish ever did. Perhaps that's why the Scottish National Party, although the largest currently in the Scottish Parliament, is outnumbered by the total of MPs belonging to unionist parties, and why polls generally show that a majority of Scots would vote against full independence.
Originally posted by TeinosukeSpot on. Nationalist sentiment in Scotland (where nationalist means separatist, rather than Scottish nationalism being part and parcel of a British nationalism) is also a pretty recent phenomenon.
As a Brit myself, I think that the case of Scotland and the case of Ireland are quite different. I don't think my country has anything to be proud of in terms of its conduct towards Ireland; it was conquered territory, and its people, who had long been ill-treated, had every right to seek self-determination. Also, our desire to hold onto the six northern c ...[text shortened]... nd why polls generally show that a majority of Scots would vote against full independence.
I don't think there's a meaningful comparison to be made with Ireland in this regard; the Scottish situation has a lot more in common with the Welsh, if a comparison has to be made at all.
Originally posted by DrKFThanks - nice to have some Scottish support! Wales, though, I think, is different again, since it was brought under English control through military conquest. I wonder if the fact that the Welsh language is thriving and, indeed, growing, whereas Scots Gaelic is shrinking and confined to outlying areas of Scotland, suggests that the Scots, on the whole, are more relaxed about their status as a constituent part of the UK than the Welsh. Certainly I get the impression that in Wales there's quite a strong impetus to encourage the use of the province's original language as a mark of separate identity.
Spot on. Nationalist sentiment in Scotland (where nationalist means separatist, rather than Scottish nationalism being part and parcel of a British nationalism) is also a pretty recent phenomenon.
I don't think there's a meaningful comparison to be made with Ireland in this regard; the Scottish situation has a lot more in common with the Welsh, if a comparison has to be made at all.
I wonder if the closest parallel to Scotland's position within the UK is that of certain regions of Spain, another federal nation gradually built up from constituent kingdoms. For instance, Aragon was, like Scotland, a separate nation, originally united with Castille through the marriage of the Aragonese King Ferdinand with the Castillian Queen Isabella; again like Scotland, it retained much autonomy until the eighteenth century, when new laws sought to centralise Spain. Today there is separatist sentiment is certain regions of Spain, such as Catalonia, but the majority in such regions are not in favour of total independence. Again like Scotland, Catalonia has in recent decades been given a substantial degree of autonomy, including a devolved parliament.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm not sure what you mean by your first point here. As far as I'm concerned, Scotland is a country, not a region.
[b]But Scotland is not a region of a country, it is a country in it's own right.
This is clearly a circular argument.
Would you argue against the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the subsequent independence of Ukraine, Lithuania, Hungary.etc?
I don't know. It depends on whether or not the people of those countries would have been bet ...[text shortened]... ussels or Berlin?[/b]
Yes, if it was a good government, why would I have a problem with it?[/b]
For your second, as I said before, I believe that there is a higher priority than prosperity. (And I should have said Communist bloc rather than Soviet bloc, sorry).
And for your third point, I could agree with you, but in the case of Ireland especially, and less so Scotland, the British government wasn't good, it was detrimental to varying degrees at dfifferent times, otherwise there wouldn't have been popular support for the uprising.
Originally posted by The SnapperI think you're being asked to explain why you think Scotland is a country, not a region. What, in other words, are the qualities that make somewhere a country, rather than a region? We can say, for instance, that Lithuania is a country because it exercises control over its own affairs, determines its own foreign policy, has representation at the UN - Scotland fulfills some of the first requirement, but not the latter two. So what's your definition of "a country"?
I'm not sure what you mean by your first point here. As far as I'm concerned, Scotland is a country, not a region.