Actually, I think the prevailing theory is that the Goidelic- or Q-Celtic-speakers of Ireland and the Cymri- or P-Celtic-speakers of pre-Roman Britain resulted from different migrations, the Irish Celts coming from Spain and the British from Gaul. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Ireland#The_Celts Irish mythology tells the same story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milesians_(Irish)).
No, Hibernia was never a Roman province. (There might have been trading outposts, but nothing more.) But after St. Patrick (a Roman Briton) converted the Irish to Christianity (or, at least, began the process), the Irish learned to read and write, and built a lot of monasteries, universities and libraries. Meanwhile, the Roman legions withdrew from Britannia, it was overrun by the pagan Anglo-Saxons, and only the Irish remained to preserve Christianity and classical learning in that part of the world. They ultimate played a role in making the English Christian and literate, and that had some influence on the revival of learning on the Continent (Charlemagne employed an English scholar, Alcuin, in the schools of the “Carolingian Renaissance”). You can read the whole story in How the Irish Saved Civilization, by Thomas Cahill (Anchor, 1996) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385418493/qid=1113767387/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-0117409-2856729).
There was one at Stoneyford on the Nore.
In the other direction there have also been some suggestions that Irish settlement in Britain may have been partially supported by hard-pressed Roman officials in the waning days of the empire as foederati of a sort - there were sizeable Irish colonies established in Wales and Cornwall in the 4th and 5th centuries.
- Tamerlane
One what? Trading outpost, or military fort?
Unlike the horrible NI statelet, Ireland guaranteed freedom on religion and religious prejudice in the Constitution. Protestants in the republic while having to deal with individual Catholics idiots did not have to deal with state driven prejudice.
I didn’t put alot of faith into NI, I always knew there was going to be repression and civil conflict, however, the leaders at the time of NI’s creation wanted to remain part of the Union, and now we’re stuck with it whether you like it or not.
Good, they bombed and killed plenty of citizens, they should pay the price. That goes for any terrorist in the Province.
They’ve been there for hundreds of years, they have as much right as any other citizen.
Originally posted by Ryan Liam
I didn’t put alot of faith into NI, I always knew there was going to be repression and civil conflict, however, the leaders at the time of NI’s creation wanted to remain part of the Union, and now we’re stuck with it whether you like it or not.
Thirty years of conflict should tell you that we’re very far from “stuck with it”.
Good, they bombed and killed plenty of citizens, they should pay the price. That goes for any terrorist in the Province.
Prisoner release was part of the Good Friday Agreement which both the Republic and Northern Ireland signed up to. It just grates that you don’t get to fulfill your righteous anger doesn’t it?
They’ve been there for hundreds of years, they have as much right as any other citizen.
Again you don’t appear to have read what I wrote, they have a right to live here, they do not have any particular right to their own little Protestant dominated personal fiefdom.
*Originally posted by a ruggedly handsome Irishman not too far away.
By the way I voted for the Good Friday Agreement, which accepts that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK until the majority votes otherwise, unlike so much hysteric British press coverage Nationalists had to accept bitter compromises for the sake of peace.*
Originally posted by Ryan_Liam
Good, they bombed and killed plenty of citizens, they should pay the price. That goes for any terrorist in the Province.
I just read this again and I don’t know how I missed it the first time. Are you saying that Nationalists = Terrorists?
For anyone else reading I missed an “also” in the above quote, I meant to say Nationalists have also had to accept bitter compromises.
And btw Ryan_Liam do you think we’re entirely happy at having to live with these released prisoners? It was necessary to achieve a peace settlement and so be it.
You can work yourself up into a froth if you want but you don’t live here.
D’oh! I was thinking of the Irish Volunteers! I believe THEY were the pre-cursor to the IRA, right?
I mixed the two of them up. Dammit.
A Roman trading post.
- Tamerlane
I just read this again and I don’t know how I missed it the first time. Are you saying that Nationalists = Terrorists?
I’m saying for all the people killed in the sectarian violence, its good the IRA had to pay a heavy price.
Who said I liked it? They bombed my towns city centre devastated it, they should be locked up forever.
Plenty of relatives who did though.
I’m saying for all the people killed in the sectarian violence, its good the IRA had to pay a heavy price.
Its called “compromise”, nobody was going to get what they wanted.
Who said I liked it? They bombed my towns city centre devastated it, they should be locked up forever.
You however don’t have a say in the matter. The IRA did not operate in a vacuum.
Plenty of relatives who did though.
Operative word being “did”.
Some interesting stuff in this thread, which for someone brought up on the English press view alone is worth the reading. Additionally,
[cheap shot at a banned poster]someone’s sure been demonstrating the difference between a patriot (“one who loves his country”) and a nationalist (“one who hates everyone else’s”), though you’d think someone with such a big phucking chip on his shoulder about Britain would learn to spell it. [/csaabp]
Would it be any different if Ireland (the island) was stuck onto the rest of the British Isles and not isolated. I sometimes wonder if such a fuss is made about uniting the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland because its so easier to talk about the borders of an island in comparison to the borders of countries on the continent?
Do you mean why should Ireland have been partitioned at the wishes of the Protestant minority? I always thought the issue was more about independence and not about rearranging the borders of a country.
Originally posted by Pushkin
Would it be any different if Ireland (the island) was stuck onto the rest of the British Isles and not isolated. I sometimes wonder if such a fuss is made about uniting the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland because its so easier to talk about the borders of an island in comparison to the borders of countries on the continent?
Well a similar distinction is made when talking about the UK as compared to the European mainland, eg: “We’re an island nation with an independent history”. Ireland is also an island nation with an independent history and has only been partitioned since 1921, an eyeblink in historical terms.
Do you mean why should Ireland have been partitioned at the wishes of the Protestant minority? I always thought the issue was more about independence and not about rearranging the borders of a country.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean in your second sentence. I take exception to the oft repeated phrase that Nationalists should automatically bow to the wishes of the Protestant majority of Northern Ireland in the name of democracy because Northern Ireland was artifically created precisely to have that majority.
Just a thought that maybe attitudes would be different on a larger land mass like continental Europe where borders have changed with much more frequency than in the British Isles.
Remembering though that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland voted to decide their own future by way of the Good Friday Agreement.
The majority of Nationalists supported it while Unionists didn’t. For the moment Nationalists are probably quite happy to go along with what the Protestant majority want knowing that in years to come birth rates may help them decide otherwise.
So not everyone at least in Northern Ireland would take exception to that phrase 
It was easy for the Republic to guarantee freedom of religion, because there were, and are, just a scattering of Protestants, they’re spread out, and not politically active. If the North had been a part of the Republic from the beginning, you’d have a large, geographically concentrated, politically active and millitant religious minority opposed to the Republic, and who knows how the Irish government would have reacted. 12 July would have been interesting.
You’ve got to remember that a lot of the people who fought for Ireland’s self determination over the centuries were protestants. I would like to think that protestants in NI would have been treated as any other Irish citizen.
De Valera was very insistent on Ireland joining the rest of the developed democratic countries on gaining out independent. When he finally got into power he carried out a very hard and ruthless campaign against former allies who remained in the IRA after the civil war.
Yes there would have been problems with regard to the loyalists up north but I can’t see how it could have been worse that what was created by the Unionists.
Originally posted by Pushkin
Just a thought that maybe attitudes would be different on a larger land mass like continental Europe where borders have changed with much more frequency than in the British Isles.
You may be correct, but its as common for such conflicts over borders to take place on continents as on islands, eg; The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or the Shining Path in Peru. The situation in the Balkans is another example.
Remembering though that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland voted to decide their own future by way of the Good Friday Agreement.
The majority of Nationalists supported it while Unionists didn’t. For the moment Nationalists are probably quite happy to go along with what the Protestant majority want knowing that in years to come birth rates may help them decide otherwise.
So not everyone at least in Northern Ireland would take exception to that phrase
As I said earlier I voted for the Good Friday Agreement accepting that any progress for Nationalist or Republican objectives would have to be by democratic means. I’m fairly sure that the higher demographic birthrate in Catholic areas is no longer as large a factor as it once was, Catholics are beginning to have smaller families and I believe the Catholic minority at the last election was found to be substantially smaller than was previously thought (nearer a quarter of the population than a third). I’ll have to check that though as I’m unsure. Also that argument rests on the assumption that all Catholics will vote for a United Ireland which isn’t a given, several of my Catholic friends have declared (quietly) that they would vote to maintain the Union, if only for economic reasons (which is a cold and unromantic view in my opinion not to mention most likely mistaken, they seem to think that the Republic is all donkey drawn carts and farmers but I suppose thats what you get for living as far from the Border as its possible to be and still be in Northern Ireland.) 
I take exception to the phrase because its usually implied or outright stated that Catholics had no legitimate reason to turn to violence because Northern Ireland is part of a democracy, until recent times it had absolutely no claim to that title, whether the use of violence was legitimate or not is another argument but the option of change by democratic means was definitely not available.
On re-reading that I meant that Island vs Continent = Tamil Tigers vs Shining Path.