Is Ireland Viable?

[Eric Mc]

With the arrival of the "heavies" from Brussels this week as they set out their dictats for the way the Irish economy will be run for probably the next decade at least, the thought occured to me that perhaps, as a separate economic entity, Ireland is incapable of sustaining itself economically.
Since 1921 Ireland has relied on the safety valve of emigration to ensure that there were not too many restraints on its economic resources. It looks like this pattern is ready to start all over again.

If the answer to the question is, "No, Ireland is not big enough to sustain itself economiocally", where does that leave those "nations" that are still within the UK but cry out for full economic and financial independence?

[groak]

Eric Mc said:

With the arrival of the "heavies" from Brussels this week as they set out their dictats for the way the Irish economy will be run for probably the next decade at least, the thought occured to me that perhaps, as a separate economic entity, Ireland is incapable of sustaining itself economically.
Since 1921 Ireland has relied on the safety valve of emigration to ensure that there were not too many restraints on its economic resources. It looks like this pattern is ready to start all over again.

If the answer to the question is, "No, Ireland is not big enough to sustain itself economiocally", where does that leave those "nations" that are still within the UK but cry out for full economic and financial independence?

I don't think size is the sole criterion of successful independence. An independent Scotland might generate income from oil, whisky, tourism including specialist tourism (golf, hunting/fishing/skiing etc),financial services in Edinburgh, and all the old standards. But the opportunities could be limitless if independence meant we really could shed all the systems and thinking which make life and business so difficult in the UK nowadays.

[Eric Mc]

Most "new" countries don't copmpletely wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. They suually have to incorporate the admin infrastructure from the old regime.

Could Scotland exist successfully with England just a neighbouring country next door?

[Mr Dave]

Every time I go down across the border into that god forsaken land, I am always amazed by how many Africans, Romanians and Polish there are. I do have to wonder if the influx of large amounts of imigrants has had an effect on Irelands economy in a positive or negative way.

You are asking if Ireland is able to exist by itself, I am going to ask is Ireland capable of supporting itself and a large amounts of immigrants most of whom probably send money back to where they came from.

I also think Ireland is viable, just not in its current state. As a counrty it seems to rely heavily on tourism, theres not many unique industries that couldnt be set up in another country apart from Guinness and Whisky and so on. I think a lot of big businesses are in Ireland because of the tax breaks and incentives they recieved for locating in Ireland.

[groak]

Eric Mc said:

Most "new" countries don't copmpletely wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. They suually have to incorporate the admin infrastructure from the old regime.

Could Scotland exist successfully with England just a neighbouring country next door?

This is just a HUGE topic. Independence could be very successful but probably only by hugely changing very basic things like governance, law and fiscality. A very good relationship with England would be essential, but how would the English react, for example, to a Scotland which sold itself as a tax haven, governed by committee rather than adversarial political parties, or (not my choice) a place where, for example, cannabis was legal and legally traded and all law was advocarial rather than adversarial? The more independence was just Scotland doing the same old things in the same old ways just without being linked to England the less likely success would be. In fact that would just be silly, and, sadly, I think that's what the SNP have very much in mind.

[jeff m]

I have just paid $1.67+tax for 2 oz of fries, so I think that's a yes.

[Eric Mc]

All my life in Ireland (1958 to 1985), the country was in a state of full or semi-recession. It's had a brief glimpse of affluence but has now plunged into possibly its worst state since the 1930s.

[Ed5995]

The facts speak for themselves. Since independence the Irish state has maintained the fiction that its financial woes were a continuing legacy of Brit rule in preceding centuries. Sadly many in Ireland still resent the Brits, entertain fairy stories about their independence, yet don't see the irony when they get on the next plane to England looking for work. By my reckoning the Republic of Ireland, created in 1921, was viable only between 1998-2008...and that relied on a catalyst of significant european subsidy. The situation now has not been helped by much of the EU funding Ireland depended on now being invested in the newer eastern European member states. Plus the value of the euro is too strong for the strength of the Irish economy. Fact: Ireland is bust. It is a failed economic entity not helped by failed politics rooted in early nationalist/repubilican gibberish and a political class corrupt as they come. God help the poor Irish taxpayer.

Fact also: Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north-east of England aren't so great either when it comes to economic viability. Lots of southern English tax pounds flow northwards every day.

One thing we could all benefit from is getting rid of these fking useless local Assemblys / parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They add nothing and cost too much. From being pro-European I now wish we hadn't walked away from a stronger relationship with Canada, NZ, Australia - remember the commonwealth, just wish it had been more about economic partnership with culturally and historically related countries. We had far more in common with them that the EU members. And if the Republic of Ireland could swallow it's pride I'd have that as a valued member of the Commonwealth too.

[Eric Mc]

Although I kind of got slagged off for mentioning The Famine on another thread, the serious undermining of Ireland's population at that time, plus the fact that Ireland had lost its own parliament in 1801, were the factors that set Ireland up for the 20th century in a very weak position.
I don't think it's ever really been able to get itself going properly as a modern industrial country. It made brave attempts in the late 50s to mid 60s but decided to pin its colours to teh European mast from the 1970s onwards.

Well, now they have become servants to a European master as opposed to a British one. I wonder how they are all feeling now.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Eric Mc said:

If the answer to the question is, "No, Ireland is not big enough to sustain itself economiocally", where does that leave those "nations" that are still within the UK but cry out for full economic and financial independence?

Personally if I was looking for government spending cuts I'd begin by eliminating the utter waste of money represented by the Welsh and scottish assemblies.

The Northern Ireland assembly I have a little more time for if only to ease the eventual re-integration of the North and South. In reality, as the EU develops so those historical differences become increasingly meaningless - which is a good thing.

So long as the EU as a whole remains viable I don't think the short term difficulties of individual smaller nations are particularly significant.

[BruceV8]

Its a supreme irony that Ireland wanted independence from the British so badly (well, Irish Nationalists did, which wasn't everyone) only to end up as a vassal state of a much less democratic and much more foreign empire. I suspect the same would happen to Scotland if it ever broke the Union.

[Mr Dave]

Ed5995 said:

Fact also: Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north-east of England aren't so great either when it comes to economic viability. Lots of southern English tax pounds flow northwards every day.

The areas where heavy industry, aviation, shipbuilding, cloth manufacturing, clothes production have all nearly died out.

I remember a few years ago all the clothes factories up near Strabane/Londonderry/Sion Mills closing down and now all those people that worked in the factorys are either on benefits or working for the government. Same for Belfast with the ship yards and airplane factories. Same as Glasgow with clothing.

Those were jobs that brought money into the UK. Now people are sending money abroad to pay for the things that would have cost slightly more if they were built in the UK but at the same time had some foreign sales sucess and money spent in the UK.

Down South never really had heavy industry, not in the same way as north England/Scotland/NI.

Even the town I live in had several clothes factories, weavers and carpet factories and a factory or three for Shorts aircraft company. Now we make parts for a Canadian company in two factories and nothing else is getting made here now.

I digress, back to Ireland. Up a creek without a paddle im afraid unless it finds something useful to do.

[TuxRacer]

I don't see any reason it couldn't have been.

Seems pretty screwed right now though.

[Derek Smith]

groak said:

Eric Mc said:

Most "new" countries don't copmpletely wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. They suually have to incorporate the admin infrastructure from the old regime.

Could Scotland exist successfully with England just a neighbouring country next door?

This is just a HUGE topic. Independence could be very successful but probably only by hugely changing very basic things like governance, law and fiscality. A very good relationship with England would be essential, but how would the English react, for example, to a Scotland which sold itself as a tax haven, governed by committee rather than adversarial political parties, or (not my choice) a place where, for example, cannabis was legal and legally traded and all law was advocarial rather than adversarial? The more independence was just Scotland doing the same old things in the same old ways just without being linked to England the less likely success would be. In fact that would just be silly, and, sadly, I think that's what the SNP have very much in mind.

The problem for Scotland is that if they do gain independence and England/Wales becomes self governing then there will be a lurch to the right south of the border and the opposite on their side.

Both England and Scotland flourished after the act of union, the main reason seeming to be - oversimplification though this is, run with it - instead of competing we worked together. If we start to compete again then there is every probability that we will start scoring points off one another.

Both England and Scotland could justifiably say that each was run by the other. Had it not been for the Scottish labour mps England would have been many steps to the right. Indeed the English Labour party only survives because of Scotland.

The Scottish labour party is more old school than the English one. Indeed, there is an argument to suggest that there is no English side. It is dominated by the Scots. Without them it would have ceased to exist long ago. So blame Scotland for Blair. And obviously Brown.

My suspicion is that if Scotland did become fully independent, or at least have its own parliament and no foot in Westminster, then England would, I think, become more financially powerful. This could cost Scotland which would become more, even more, socialist in form.

Whilst the oil income would, one assumes, be sufficient to bolster the country and keep it fiscally viable, it would also require careful management and Scottish politicians are just as incompetent as everyone else’s.

There is much truth in the suggestion that England was both the cause and the solution of Scotland’s problems with the Darien Scheme but it seems to me that the real cause was the competitiveness between the two countries. If that returns with a break up of the Union then both countries will suffer.

The difference nowadays is, of course, the EU.

The main question is whether Scotland can defend its interests against the EU. What are the chances that an independent Scotland, at least under Salmon, or a group of Labour MPs, would have gone into the single currency?

But it would not, with the oil income, be in the same situation as Eire is at the moment. Although of course, Brown might well have been running their finances for a few years had they become fully independent. Now there a sobering thought, even for Scots.

As for moving away from adversarial politics: I don’t think that’s likely in Scotland. The only thing that made Scotland one country was England. Culloden, that great battle between the Scots and English, resolves itself after research into something more akin to a Scottish civil war.

I also wonder how many rich Scots, reluctant to return because of English taxes, will flood back to a leftish Scotland. Or rather, I don’t.

Ireland is somewhat different. It has no oil and that’s its great tragedy. Natural resources are few. But it is a new country in reality, at least in governance. The Co Cork that my grandmother left bears little relationship to the one that I went to in the 50s, as little more than a child. And in the intervening 55 years it has changed as much again.

Some friends spent their honeymoon in Dublin about 35 years or so ago and he said it felt like a glorified theme park, with people living in the past and dancing without moving their arms. My daughter went there about five years ago, oddly enough for the hen night of my friends’ daughter, and she said it was a lovely place, lively, modern and quite exciting. I’ve got to say I had hopes that it was moving forwards. But, it seems, it was although at too fast a pace.

What does it do now? Will it, as many say is an essential of the loan, increase it’s corporation tax and become an outpost of the EEC?

There’s nothing to stop Ireland being a viable state but it needs friends with the same ethos. Whether it could turn to the UK, even without Scotland, is more than I can say.

Ireland shuffled off control from the UK and then took on the church as its boss. It would appear to be moving away from them and, if they’ve got little money, then the church will probably lose a bit of interest in them. But it has the EU now. They don’t so much rule it as own it.

Not often mentioned is the huge resentment in the East End of London and Liverpool against the Irish after the war. The fact that many people believed there were German U-boat ‘training camps’ on the west coast and most of those in my area had connections with the merchant and royal navies didn’t help of course. My grandmother’s place of birth and my grandfather’s assumed Irishness (he was from Liverpool so obviously from Ireland) was mitigated by the fact that she lost around a dozen sons and sons in law in the two world wars. Whilst we were often called the Bog Irish Smiths, it was never to our faces.

I never suffered any racism to my face as my grandmother refused to accept she was Irish (long story) and so few people (even me until I was an adult) knew. Indeed, one of her favourite sayings was ‘bloody Irish’. We were, as I thought, surrounded by them. Then I found out we were them. But looking back there was a fair bit of anti-Irish talk and bits in the papers. ‘No blacks or Irish’ used to be in the newspaper ads for rooms to let.

But that appears to have disappeared and the Irish, at least from Eire, seem to have overcome their resentment against the British to a great extent and there is an opportunity for form a pact, without control, to balance ‘our’ interests against those of the mainland.

But Ireland needs friends and that means compromise. Is Ireland big enough to exist without compromise? I’d say no. And nor is Scotland.

[slow_poke]

Hey, it's been a decade long binge of a party, and the hangover's going to be horrible.

But we'll get over that. In the grand scheme of things, having to live within your means ranks far behind war, famine, disease, earthquakes, other natural disasters, etc etc.

The important thing is to learn the lessons from this sorry chapter. And make sure the political system is reformed along with the economy.

[Derek Smith]

slow_poke said:

The important thing is to learn the lessons from this sorry chapter.

No one learns from history. That's what I've learnt from history.

[Mr Dave]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/empandunempilo.htm

Those are the employment figures broken down by "industry" in 2008 so not up to date and not accurate but good enough illustration of things in good times.

Nearly all of those are service industries.

The only way for service industries to bring any meaningful amounts of money in is tourism.

If the UK was so inclined we are still in the position to absolutely cripple Ireland. Much much worse than it is in the minute and prevent them from competing with us for trade and industry but that wont happen.

[-Pete-]

No, it's not viable - it never really was IMO. Without Eu farming subsidies and corporation tax so low that the it doesn't cover the bills, they don't really have much to keep them going, except generally charming personalities and some beautiful countryside. I hope they find something to prove me wrong!

[groak]

Derek Smith said:

The problem for Scotland is that if they do gain independence and England/Wales becomes self governing then there will be a lurch to the right south of the border and the opposite on their side.

Both England and Scotland flourished after the act of union, the main reason seeming to be - oversimplification though this is, run with it - instead of competing we worked together. If we start to compete again then there is every probability that we will start scoring points off one another.

Both England and Scotland could justifiably say that each was run by the other. Had it not been for the Scottish labour mps England would have been many steps to the right. Indeed the English Labour party only survives because of Scotland.

The Scottish labour party is more old school than the English one. Indeed, there is an argument to suggest that there is no English side. It is dominated by the Scots. Without them it would have ceased to exist long ago. So blame Scotland for Blair. And obviously Brown.

My suspicion is that if Scotland did become fully independent, or at least have its own parliament and no foot in Westminster, then England would, I think, become more financially powerful. This could cost Scotland which would become more, even more, socialist in form.

Whilst the oil income would, one assumes, be sufficient to bolster the country and keep it fiscally viable, it would also require careful management and Scottish politicians are just as incompetent as everyone else’s.

There is much truth in the suggestion that England was both the cause and the solution of Scotland’s problems with the Darien Scheme but it seems to me that the real cause was the competitiveness between the two countries. If that returns with a break up of the Union then both countries will suffer.

The difference nowadays is, of course, the EU.

The main question is whether Scotland can defend its interests against the EU. What are the chances that an independent Scotland, at least under Salmon, or a group of Labour MPs, would have gone into the single currency?

But it would not, with the oil income, be in the same situation as Eire is at the moment. Although of course, Brown might well have been running their finances for a few years had they become fully independent. Now there a sobering thought, even for Scots.

As for moving away from adversarial politics: I don’t think that’s likely in Scotland. The only thing that made Scotland one country was England. Culloden, that great battle between the Scots and English, resolves itself after research into something more akin to a Scottish civil war.

I also wonder how many rich Scots, reluctant to return because of English taxes, will flood back to a leftish Scotland. Or rather, I don’t.

Ireland is somewhat different. It has no oil and that’s its great tragedy. Natural resources are few. But it is a new country in reality, at least in governance.

What does it do now? Will it, as many say is an essential of the loan, increase it’s corporation tax and become an outpost of the EEC?

There’s nothing to stop Ireland being a viable state but it needs friends with the same ethos. Whether it could turn to the UK, even without Scotland, is more than I can say.

Ireland shuffled off control from the UK. But it has the EU now. They don’t so much rule it as own it.

Ireland needs friends and that means compromise. Is Ireland big enough to exist without compromise? I’d say no. And nor is Scotland.

Y'see the above presupposes an independent Scotland which strives to be a successful mini-me copy of England. But it needn't necessarily be so. We could have a radically different society and economy from England's with no essential obligation to be in the EU or NATO either for that matter. Economic success has nothing to do with size, nor need it be measured by a country's number of billionaires as opposed to, for example, being measured by the standard of living enjoyed by the poorest citizens. And whilst oil money's hugely useful it's far from the only game in town. Independent Scotland's longterm future would be far better and more securely guaranteed by an outstanding education and training system than by offshore oil. Of course if we went that route (and we would) then there's little chance we wouldn't succeed in almost anything we attempted.

One thing I hope would radically change if Scotland becomes independent is the so-called benefit culture. I think the English would be very surprised at how swift and draconian the measures to eliminate any social parasitism could be, although the range and depth of assistance available to the genuinely (including temporarily) disadvantaged would also require to be exemplary.

I also don't think the present political and legal systems would survive genuine independence any longer than it took to replace them.

On the other hand, a breakaway mini-england with people like Alex Salmond in charge would be a waste of time and an embarrassing disaster.

[groak]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What Scots/Scotland owed would require to be taken.