Easter Rising - catalyst for the Celtic Tiger?

Not certain where if anywhere this should be posted. I only half listened to an interview with Garrett Fitzgerald on NewsTalk today about his views on the 1916 commemoration and its appropriateness. In passing he modestly mentioned his famous pedigree and the fact that his Mother came from Northern Ireland, which would suggest a touch of possible bias.

Anyway, he saw fit to mention how we couldn't afford a United Ireland because of the huge cost to the government of the UK, a burden we would inherit. That means UK taxpayers of course who, given a vote, would probably be delighted to offload it - yesterday! Then a thought occurred to me. Had we remained as a part of the United Kingdom, would the Celtic Tiger have been born, would we be one of the most prosperous countries in the EU today and the envy of many? A very unlikely scenario IMHO - had it not been for the Easter Rising and all that ensued.

If then one accepts that reality, quite apart from other considerations like our independence as a nation, then surely we should also accept that were it not for all those people who suffered in 1916 and for decades later through depression, an economic war, recession and emigration, we would never have had a Celtic Tiger. Nor would we have all the benefits that have accrued to our citizens for the past 15 years and which will, hopefully, continue into the foreseeable future. This is not a defence for war and violence but where in the world has power ever been yielded up peacefully? There is always a price to be paid by idealistic and courageous people, while those who come after them reap the benefit as we do today. I wonder would the men and women of 1916 be proud of us and consider their sacrifice had not been in vain? I hope so.

PS On a lighter note, had the pre-1916 status quo been maintained, I doubt if we'd be concerned with world wide property markets, SSIAs or the date of INBS's demutualization either!

sherib said:

Then a thought occurred to me. Had we remained as a part of the United Kingdom, would the Celtic Tiger have been born, would we be one of the most prosperous countries in the EU today and the envy of many? A very unlikely scenario IMHO - had it not been for the Easter Rising and all that ensued.

Click to expand...

If 1916 hadn't happened, and had the impact you imply above, and we remained part of the UK, then its possible to argue that the "Celtic Tiger " wouldn't have been necessary at all.

As an economic activity, the Celtic Tiger really only allowed us to catch up with other countries, to make up for the lack of development we suffered in the past 80 years.

Would we not be in a position that if 1916 hadn't happened that our infrastructure, based on the UK model, would be so much further ahead than it is already. We'd already have motorways connecting all our major towns and cities. We'd already have a proper rail infrastructure in and around our capital city. We would have a country where things get done without any issues rather than dragging on and on and on.

A perfect example - to connect Londons 5th airport (LCY) to the main public transport network took less than 3 years to build - the DLR from London City airport to Bank. We're talking for years to connect our main airport to the city centre, and given current plans, we're talking 10 years in the future before we might see it.

Celtic Tiger is all good, but it's really only playing catch up. Swings and Roundabouts I reckon.

Depending on one's political leanings and/or idelogical perspective, it is possible to label almost anything as the catalyst for the Celtic Tiger - for example:
- the Famine
- the Vikings (who built Dublin)
- the Norman invasion
- the fall of Parnell
- the Irish Civil War
- the American Civil War
- World War I
- World War II
- the Cold War
- the establishment of RTE
- the development of the internet
- the rise of Michael Collins
- the shooting of Michael Collins
- Catholic Emancipation
- the child abuse scandals of the 1990s
- the troubles in NI
- the peace process in NI
- the fall of the Berlin Wall

charlie haughy being born, going into politics, sean lemass,
Liverpool winning the european cup, stephen roach's great year, ireland in the world cups. etc etc

jem said:

Liverpool winning the european cup,

Click to expand...

Which one? The first, the second, the third, the fourth or the fifth?

Surely Ireland beating England in Euro 88 was the real catalyst for the Celtic Tiger? Or perhaps the way I aligned the chips on my plate that day while watching it on TV?

You're all wrong, everyone knows it was Hydrogen Peroxide.

At least some indication of whether you are better off under UK rule or not is the extent to which the "home" countries of Scotland, and to a very much lesser extent Wales, want self rule.

Scotland has made a decent attempt at self rule, and I think our Nordy friends like the idea of self rule, its just the sharing bit (and with whom they share) they have issue with.

I dont see any reason to belive that the UK would have shown any special interest in Ireland or want to develop it - God knows their track record up to the time we got free of them wasnt the best (letting a million die on your doorstep was a tad .... insensitive). We were and are a good agricultural provider for the UK, but not having any major natural resources we wouldnt ever have seen the benefits of the good days of the UK economy - as it was the Industrial Revolution didnt make much inroads in Ireland and so it would have remained I think.

As regards economics, I dont think Ireland would have had the scope to pursue its recent economic (particularly tax) policies if within the UK. What worked for us might have been too expensive or caused too much EU fuss if it was tried to be replicated across the UK. Thats the good thing about Irelands size, most of the time we are a blip on the big picture, and even if we are carving out a nice niche its not something thats ever going to rock the world, or even the EU, so we're let at it.

As a people with a distinct identity for many hundreds of years, I think it would always rancour not to have self determination, and up to the latter part of the last century if you werent running your own affairs you were probably being exploited by your "rulers".

I appreciate what you're saying Betsy, and I'm also a bit of a republican, but as a nordie, I can vouch for the fact the even if the Brits don't like ye, they provide ye with a road network, educational facilities (not saying the end product is better, cos it probably is not) and a health system that (while much maligned) is better than that here by many multiples.
The problem with this country is that after freedom was won, a new establishment quickly replaced the old, and those members of it were too concerned with feathering their own nests rather than building an inclusive society with a infrastructural and social facilties matching those throughout the rest of Western Europe at the time. Sure if things are'nt good enough here, you can always emigrate was the policy of the time, and so millions did!
Is it true that the British had plans for an underground railway in Dublin around WW1 time?

A gist of some of the comments here, and with others in the real world that I've had similar conversations based on the original post has been that we'd no longer be Irish, that we'd be no better off, and that we'd lose our heritage and cultural identity, had 1916 not happened.

Given the strength of our heritage and cultural identity in the "800 years" up to 1916, how can it be assumed that over a further 90 years that we'd lose it instantly.

With regards to being no better off, and not having investment put into Ireland by the British, as an example of where this thinking falls flat, the miles of active railway in Ireland up to 1916 is, without having specifics, significantly greater than we have in the years since 1916. So much so, that there's campaigns now to open up the closed railways again.

Comparisons to Wales and Scotland are a bit off in my opinion as well. They have the infractructure all built for them now that they're ruling themselves (only in a small way however). It's like setting up a mobile phone network, it's tough and expensive setting up the infrastructure early on, but once it's set up, it's the easiest thing in the world to run it and make money off it. Hence Scotland and Wales ruling themselves (in small way) will be a no brainer.

The gist of my original comment was that maybe 1916 took us outside of British influence a little too soon. Had we been longer under their control, we might have been better set up as a country, and wouldn't be in the doo-doo we're in now (politically and infrastructurally speaking at least).

I think we'd have needed to hang around until after WWII which is when, I gather, a lot of the infrastructure kicked in on "the mainland". Would we have had conscription as the price of that?

I not sure I agree with the theory that a new establishment milked the country for themselves. They stumbled from a disastrous civil war into the depression of the 30's, followed by "the emergency" before crashing into the 50's !! I dont know that much of that was anyone's fault as such. The 30's was a worldwide economic decline, we couldnt cash in on WWII because a) as a fledgling state we needed to be "neutral" and b) we probably hadnt the industrial base to do much. Dont know why the disparity in fortunes across the Irish sea in the 50's but corruption was never alluded to.

I think the failing was more the insular view taken by some of the leaders of the day, the self sufficiency type idea didnt look far enough ahead.

But sure arent we all the better for the hardship we had to endure ..........

Betsy Og said:

They stumbled from a disastrous civil war...

Click to expand...

... self made...

...into the depression of the 30's

Click to expand...

... accentuated by the Government's disastrous decision to enter into an Economic War against Britain that all but destroyed our export base.

I think the failing was more the insular view taken by some of the leaders of the day, the self sufficiency type idea didnt look far enough ahead.

Click to expand...

Indeed. People sometimes forget that Ireland's protectionist "self sufficiency" strategy of the era was merely following the lead of the economic genius of Stalin's USSR and the Mao regime in China.

I not sure I agree with the theory that a new establishment milked the country for themselves

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but one thing seems pretty obvious, that there was a new establishment formed and that the remnnants of those various dynasties are still with us today when we take a look at Leinster House. From what can see there was quite a bit of milking going on, not necessarily visible to the naked eye, but is'nt cronyism a very descriptive (and often apt) word??