Why was England so much more horrible to Ireland than Scotland? Posted on May 20, 2023 by Anonymous Why was England so much more horrible to Ireland than Scotland?
Scotland was Protestant and thus civilized.
Ireland was Catholic and thus needed to be civilized, whether it wanted to or not.
>Ireland was Catholic and thus needed to be civilized, whether it wanted to or not.
Catholic Ireland saved Europe.
Calvinists are some kind of form of Gnostic and not even Christian. In your zeal for "right knowledge" (Gnosis) you're willing to excuse atrocity and sins in the flesh, so long as you think the perpetuator was on the right side and had proper gnosis. But sin is sin. Murder is murder. Repent, so you don't share a burning prison cell with Cromwell yourself. You don't need to be Catholic. This is about actually following Christ.
Death in the battlefield is not murder.
>t. A citizen from a Prottie hell hole where shemales and lesbians are priests.
>baseless assumptions which are wrong
I accept your concession.
Scotland was also its own kingdom for much of its history, albeit at times subordinate to England (see William ‘the Lion’ Dunkeld and his several acts of publicly paying homage to Angevin English kings, for example). So it also had this history in mind, whereas Ireland was much more divided and fragmented between warring warlords. When it had high kingship, which was inconsistent, it wasn’t comparable to English or Scottish kingship let alone nearly as stable, because the high king was basically just an honorary title and he didn’t have genuine command over everyone on the island. The warring warlord factions continued to do as they wished and pleased.
And then yes — this is major. I genuinely and firmly believe that if Ireland had near-unanimously converted to Protestantism, that it would have enjoyed a massively more amicable relationship with England. Too often do Irish nationalists look back at their history and see it as ethnic Englishmen massacring ethnic Irishmen without realizing that this history has almost everything to do with religious strife over anything else.
Scotland was an independent kingdom it tried to conquer, failed, and finally merged into it as a result of Scotland's monarch inheriting England.
Ireland was England's first colony and treated like such. It was the difference between a union of near-equals and a conquered country held down by force.
>and finally merged into it as a result of Scotland's monarch inheriting England
>Scotland's monarch inheriting England.
100% not what happened Jock.
>100% not what happened Jock.
Who is James VI and I ?
A monarch who predates the Acts of Union by a hundred years.
Yes, but the Union of the Crowns in 1603 was the first step in uniting the two Kingdoms.
Separate parliaments, separate armies, separate legal systems, no free trade. A personal union under a single monarch is very different to the dissolution of Scotland as a political entity as occurred under Queen Anne.
Not him but you’re being retardedly pedantic. Yes, Scotland still had its own parliament and institutions until the acts of union, but the personal union united those countries and was a huge deal. That’s like saying Hungary has always be independent and separate from Austria because it had its own parliament. So, Scotland now must be a totally different country and the UK doesn’t exist because it has its own parliament, police forces, and other institutions.
For eleventy billionth time, Jock. Scotland wasn't 'conquered' (I mean, it was, repeatedly, Aethelstan, Longshanks, Cromwell etc, but that wasn't the cause of the Union), and Scotland didn't 'inherit' England. Scotland bankrupted itself one time to many and the terms of the English bailout included Scotland joining the Union with England. Interestingly enough the devolved Scottish 'government' of today continues the retarded and short sighted spending habits that lead to that process centuries ago. It must be something in the water.
>to receive as an heir following the previous owner
Now, do parliaments, armies, legal systems, and trade have heirs? Or do monarchs? Three guesses.
Low effort troll bro.
Says the retard that couldn't piece together what James VI and I's, heir to Elizabeth I, inheritance could possibly be
>tried to conquer, failed
It wasnt, it was just more sucessful
Catholicism and constant rebellion.
It’s really one of the saddest things in history to me because the back and forth between England and Ireland was clearly a violent cycle where one would do something and the other would respond.
You can’t blame the Irish because they were ruled by a foreign religion and technically a foreign people. Their rebellions viewed in this way are noble.
But you can’t blame the English because the pope granted them dominion there and after the reformation, they couldn’t leave it because they were the back door to England. There was a very real and justified fear of continental Catholics, the French or Spanish, using Ireland to invade England. If either power managed this, the killing of Protestants would have been immense. So, the English had to do this out of strategic necessity and then the Irish constantly revolted and constantly tried inviting these foreign powers in. It was a cycle of the Irish rebelling and inviting the French/Spanish to come and then England crushing the rebellion and using more harsh measures to prevent another one. The harsh measures weren’t unique for the time period, but they just didn’t help and only fostered more desire to rebel.
You saw the same thing happen in the Scottish highlands where Catholicism persisted. However, 2 rebellions and the clearances put that down firmly because the population there was smaller than all of Ireland which remained Catholic outside of plantation settlers.
> But you can’t blame the English because the pope granted them dominion there
What a coincidence that the only English Pope to ever live granted England dominion in Ireland…
Yeah, I understand that Adrian IV was English, but that’s just how they got there in the beginning. I’m not saying that was completely justified because I know it was very political ( I would also say that initial grant of lordship ended the moment they broke form the Church and I’m pretty sure it was formally revoked). But once they’re there and the reformation happens, they couldn’t leave it for all of the other reasons I mentioned.
R1b vs R1b
Scotland had some R1as from the Viking era who were so pathetic the English didn’t genocide them and bullied them instead
Scotland was an independent kingdom whose King actually inherited England rather than the opposite.
Ireland had been (technically) under the English King's lordship since the 1100s when the Pope gave the greenlight for Normans to invade it.
>Scotland inherited England
The Scots would have gotten it just as bad if they were Protestants. The highlanders that remained Catholic and loyal to the Stuarts did get it pretty bad after the Jacobite Risings. Even though most Scots were loyal too (even many highlanders were, see the Campbells), there were still strict laws put in place across the whole of Scotland. There was definitely a sentiment in England following the ‘45 rising that all Scots were equally barbarous and disloyal (despite the support for Charlie being small overall).
By contrast, look at the Welsh. They were conquered and incorporated but we’ve got nothing as bad going on there because they were Protestant and didn’t rebel. And some of it could be the integration of many Welshmen into government under the Tudors.
>By contrast, look at the Welsh. They were conquered and incorporated but we’ve got nothing as bad going on there because they were Protestant and didn’t rebel. And some of it could be the integration of many Welshmen into government under the Tudors.
This is always the point I make, as I tried to lay out a bit here
. If the Irish had become Protestants then the English wouldn’t have had nearly as much conflict with them. Look at Wales — no trouble and the Welsh language survived just fine. It doesn’t make much sense to believe that the English would have been so much worse to the Irish for basically no reason while essentially leaving the Welsh be. Like, wouldn’t they also have been concerned with deeply oppressing Wales and eliminating the Welsh language too…?
From what i've read the Irish have always had a problem, lets call it racism and conspiracy mindedness. Thats not to say it has any validity. The point i'm going to make is that the Irish throughout their entire history would point at other Irish, usually the wealthier ones and tar them as a foreigner. For reprisals.
So for example someone was Irish they'd get called a Norse-gael, A Norman, a Tudor, English. It didn't matter if they were as Irish as the person pointing the finger
Yeah nativism is very strong there, and since the Reformation, has become irreversibly intertwined with Catholicism. Even if you’re a full-blooded Irishman ethnically, if you’re a Protestant, you might as well be a deadman.
All the irony in the world as well, considering that it was the Papacy which granted King Henry II the right for England to rule over Ireland. This was established by the only one ever English pope, but still, a pope is a pope and according to Papists their authority is ultimate, second only to God. So Catholic God wanted England to rule over Ireland, yet Catholic Ireland also wanted England to fuck off. Bit odd if you ask me.
Its mere popery
>So Catholic God
There's no such thing as a Catholic God. English and Irish people both believed in the same one God.
>no trouble and the Welsh language survived just fine.
The government specificaly targeted Welsh and beat children for speaking it.
10% of Wales speaks Welsh. It is not "fine" at all.
Provide sources for your claims, anon. Next you’re going to tell me that anti-Irish language laws existed too, despite the fact that there is fundamentally no evidence for them existing. Even Queen Lizzy I learned Gaelic, ever the bookish and talented linguist that she was. Doesn’t make a lot of sense that the Queen of England was go out of her way to learn Irish if her state was dead-set on eliminating the language now does it, anon?
>a 16th century queen learned Welsh so people couldn't attack it in the 1800s
Wow, you really struggle to read. Save yourself embarrassment now and delete this. Firstly, I said QEI learned Gaelic, not Welsh, and secondly, I was specifically referring to the era of her reign when Protestant fervour was at an all-time high. You must be a drooling, irretrievable retard not to be able to parse that out.
Based autist having a meltdown
English policy was to crush all people outside London and centralise everything in the UK
Get over it chudcel
That’s 10% more than makes sense tbf
The Welsh Not was a policy employed by Welsh educators and the Church of Wales wishing to integrate their society with the wider English one and encourage social mobility, it was never a government policy and when English parliamentarians first heard of it, they decried it as a malicious and cruel practice. Welsh Anglophiles literally did it to themselves.
And Welsh speakers are closer to 20% of Wales as of 2021.
Because all they had to do was forcibly move the Scottish to Ireland where their rape was considered of good taste.
The Scots average IQ was 6pts above England at the time. The Irish average IQ was 10 pts below England at the time (African Americans, btw are 15 pts below White American, for reference). There's a reason they are called "The naggers of Europe", I bet you're smart enough to figure out the rest (unless you're Irish)
Cromwell being “anti Irish” is so revisionist it’s painful it’s somehow accepted as truth today
Cromwell hated the monarchy, guess where the monarchy had the strongest support during the civil war and where the king literally fled to gather troops? Ireland. The Irish catholic’s were huge supporters of the English king
He literally did the same thing every general did in war at the time. And somehow this became treated like the Irish were genocided
it's weird to me how Americans should love Cromwell as a figure, hes like a proto-american revolutionary.
But because they have been so throughly infiltrated by irish they don't know about him
>it's weird to me how Americans should love Cromwell as a figure
We are talking about Oliver Cromwell, aren't we? Cromwell the tyrant? Cromwell the religious maniac? Cromwell the dictator? Cromwell who was so roundly hated that they put his corpse on trial for treason? Why would anyone want to love or respect him? Even if he'd never even heard of Ireland he's rightly hated.
Cromwell the King slayer? He did what every American revolutionary wanted to do. Had a government for the people, executed the King for tyrannical incompetence.
>beheaded his corpse
thats just funny. Imagine seething so hard at a man you have to trial his corpse.
Imagine the kind of horrific tyrannical shit someone would need to do to get a big enough chunk of a country angry enough with him that they want to behead his corpse.
but the country wasnt mad with him, it was the royalists, don't be disingenous.
The royalists got back into power and posthumously executed him out of butthurt
>American in favour of a religious maniac trying to establish a hereditary line of 'supreme leader' tier dictatorships
Yeah that checks out
>Cromwell was "For the people",
>Wanted to stop one authoritarian dictatorship being replaced by the next
>sort to reign in the Kings power
>set up a republic
I don't see how he differs from an American revolutionary.
>In 1657, Cromwell was offered the crown by Parliament as part of a revised constitutional settlement, presenting him with a dilemma since he had been "instrumental" in abolishing the monarchy. Cromwell agonised for six weeks over the offer. He was attracted by the prospect of stability it held out, but in a speech on 13 April 1657 he made clear that God's providence had spoken against the office of King: "I would not seek to set up that which Providence hath destroyed and laid in the dust, and I would not build Jericho again".
>But, most notably, the office of Lord Protector was still not to become hereditary, though Cromwell was now able to nominate his own successor.
>I am angry therefore he is bad
You are angry because of modern propaganda. If you were raised different and merely reading about his life and exploits you would conclude he wasn't much different from contemporary generals, besides his talent.
His prisoners were violent religious extremists, too dangerous to be released and this being the 17th century with the whole country starving there were no Norway style prisons available, it would be routine to kill them all anywhere else in the world yet he opted for this more humane option.
What kind of moron are you that you think a majority of the country must believe something for a handful of nobles to put a corpse on trial?
He sent Irish to plantations as slave labor. Americans have a fetish for slave labor and religious nuts, so I can see why he'd be so praised.
but thats the thing he isn't.
isn't that mostly due to the rampant historical illiteracy in America?
my theory is because Cromwell is hated by the Irish and many Americans falsely believe they are Irish
yeah i've read that like much of Irish "history" it was made up much later. Figures exaggerated and a narrative created.
Part of the problem is that Irish historical memory commonly looks to any conflict between English/British and the Irish and just jumps to immediately viewing it as genocidal because it was one group against the other. Somehow the nuances of the political reasons for these conflicts should just be completely ignored in favour of the muh genocide narrative. The Irish have a bad habit of taking things personally which weren’t. Even the infamous massacres of the War of the Three Kingdoms/English Civil War were not any worse than massacres which happened elsewhere in Europe at the same time vis a vis the 30 Yrs War. But ask the Irish and this was genocide. Meanwhile the Germans and French don’t accuse each other of this in respect to their massive war, where such occurrences were commonplace.
To add on to what the anon you replied to said, there’s even surviving documentation from Cromwell demanding to the English puritan colonists of New England that they leave the English Catholic colonists of Maryland be. Of course they didn’t do this, but why would someone hell-bent on destroying Catholicism not advocate for the destruction of Catholicism in a region of the power he controlled? It makes absolutely no sense. As the other anon said, the monarchists fled to Ireland because of the support they enjoyed there, and the Parliamentarians followed.
yeah particularly the point "genocide" seems fabricated by Irish, hundreds of years later.
The Irish seem to be the originator of genocide myths. Not saying all genocides are invalid but calling things like natural disasters and conflicts genocide is originating from them.
It seems to be used to exclusively smear the British and anywhere related to the British
Completely agreed. The Irish would be frequent gold medalists in the oppression Olympics.
Nice try Nigel. You tried to destroy the Irish race but we survived. Now you destroyed your own pathetic country with brexit we will take back our whole island and laugh as you starve
they should have tried then we wouldn't have to put up with your bullshit.
Sadly they are not germans.
Irish were the largest supporters of the british empire they loved being Britain's cucks until the americans funded republican sentiment.
i don't think so, i actually think people were dumb to ever trust the Irish up until ww1, It would have been much better to just leave them alone and sort themselves out.
Since colonialism up until the wars, irish were constantly recorded as causing problems, like the first crimes and sabotaging war efforts.
Blows my mind you would have Irish units straight after the Irish war of independence. These are the guys that would deliberately sign up with the enemy. They would immediately distort history after ww1.
I'll just say its very telling the number of dictators and entrenched corrupt politicians that hate and fear Cromwell to this day.
This man was obviously someone tyrants fear.
Scotland was a much closer state to England in terms of economic, social and cultural development than Ireland. Forget the noble savage tropes of Braveheart, the Lowland Scots were a sophisticated people with strong ties to England and the rest of Europe. The English had a domineering attitude towards the Scots but the conditions were never conducive for it to become a bona fide colonial enterprise. Scottish civil society was simply too strong for that.
Ireland on the other hand was a far more fractured society, organised along traditional kinship lines until the Plantation of Ulster when the English set out to destroy the Irish clans. It had far more of a tribal outlook and was always in a state of disunity between different warring clans. This made it ripe for colonial enterprise, which is how the English treated it for more or less 800 years from the time of the Anglo-Norman conquest onwards.
>thread has "scotland" in title or OP
>deranged Englishman is responsible for every other post
What causes this phenomenon? Who are these people?
a lot of irish conspiracy theory is simply irish backstabbing each other in the back. Then some bright spark will come along and exploit it by saying its done by English-irish.
For instance during the famine, unionised irish thugs were preventing Irish from feeding themselves. This sort of petty mob mindedness runs throughout their history.
Is there a peep from the irish about this? nope, it was the English-irish!
>For instance during the famine, unionised irish thugs were preventing Irish from feeding themselves. This sort of petty mob mindedness runs throughout their history.
Can you provide a source for this, anon? I’d like to read up on it more, trusting your word that it’s true, which I do because Irish historical memory of the famine is plagued with politicized bullshit. For example, more food was being imported into Ireland during the two worst years of the famine (1847 and 48) than was being exported from it, and secondly, at its height, approximately 66% of Irishmen were receiving partial or even full food aid from British government aid initiatives. Then there’s also the establishment of the British Relief Association, of which many patrons and donors were British parliamentarians and aristocrats. Why would they willingly finance relief aid for Ireland if they wanted the Irish to be genocidally eliminated? Even Cormac O’Grada, one of Ireland’s most respected mid-19th century historians, openly contests the claims that the famine was genocide, and he has written numerous books on the topic. O’Grada has stated that the cries of “it was genocide” completely ignore and ignorantly dismiss all the efforts Britain went through to stop the famine, as if those don’t matter at all.
>For example, more food was being imported into Ireland during the two worst years of the famine (1847 and 48) than was being exported from it, and secondly, at its height, approximately 66% of Irishmen were receiving partial or even full food aid from British government aid initiatives
Yes based giving people food they can't eat
Their representative, William Todhunter, however, found them exasperating. ‘ They are,’ he wrote, ‘ next to incorrigible,’ and that ‘ some of their laws should be broken through. They will only go out at certain days and times, and if other boats go out the crews would be beaten and the nets destroyed.’
Woodham-Smith tells us that some days before Todhunter arrived the Claddagh men went out and caught a large catch of fine herrings. They then refused to go out again for several nights, nor would they allow anyone else to go out. Todhunter considered that a naval sloop should be stationed in Galway Bay to protect other fishermen from the Claddagh men. ‘ Their carelessness was maddening.’ It was ‘’ really awful’, he wrote, ‘to observe the waste of their property from want of attention and care... One sixth the number of boats properly equipped and manned would take a much greater amount of fish....Nothing could be more vexatious than to see many boats ruined merely from the circumstances of allowing the large stones to drop from the quays and the boats to rest on them as the tide ebbed’....
for context: The Society of Friends, Quakers, who gave practical help and leadership in these terrible times, was asked by the British government to help the Claddagh fishermen. Their representative, William Todhunter
thats what i mean, the idea the British were conspiring to move the pieces around the board to maximise the death of the famine, its loony toons. Theres no evidence of it.
Much like British governance all over the world there is this real factual evidence they tried to prevent disaster, help people and do their best.
But instead fable is used instead of evidence. Like
>the Queen donated a mere 5 pounds and spent a thousand on her dog!
this is obviously, obviously bullshit to anyone with a brain. Even irish know its bullshit because they know its a funny joke. Yet they will get angry if you point out its bullshit.
Apparently the first recorded time someone claimed that she gave nothing at all was from the mouth of Parnell. Meanwhile what she gave at the time that she gave it was considered to be a fair and generous sum.
Amazing how the myth has far outdone the reality. It’s as baseless as being told that cracking your knuckles will give you arthritis.
>the idea the British were conspiring to move the pieces around the board to maximise the death of the famine, its loony toons.
Even just the idea that the then-foremost industrialist capitalist nation would purposefully harm its own economy by giving itself a famine to deal with and need to allot resources to is patently ridiculous.
The Turkish offered to ship food for free to Ireland for relief efforts to stop the famine…
ENGLAND refused. They wanted the Irish to starve. It was a planned genocide. Fact. I’m only an Irish in Boston because my family fled the starvation caused by English back home. I wish I could return to my homeland but until it’s free and unified I refuse
>I’m only an Irish in Boston
Weird way of saying you’re American.
>I wish I could return to my homeland but until it’s free and unified I refuse
Weird way of saying you can’t afford to do so.
>I wish I could return to my homeland but until it’s free and unified I refuse
You do realize that the Republic of Ireland fully accepts and acknowledges Northern Ireland as a part of Britain, right? And that even still today most Northern Ireland residents, regardless of faith and ethnicity, wish to remain citizens of the United Kingdom? Typical Yank nonsense. You have this delusional, dreamy view of a country which you have only a distant, virtually non-existent relationship with and want to tell everyone else how it should be governed when you don’t even fucking live there. And you won’t even visit it because you’ve chosen to be a purposefully pigheaded retard.
t. actual Irishman living in and typing this to you from Drogheda this very minute.
>The Turkish offered to ship food for free to Ireland for relief efforts to stop the famine…
>ENGLAND refused. They wanted the Irish to starve. It was a planned genocide. Fact.
I can imagine the United Kingdom didn’t want to lose face, being the world’s foremost military power at the time. Would have looked like a major admission that they didn’t have things under control. Probably had virtually only to do with this, anon.
Also, England does not equal Britain does not equal United Kingdom. Learn your terms and definitions, Plastic Paddy. It’s becomes very hard to take your talking points seriously when you use incorrect designations and misnomers.
>Fact. I’m only an Irish in Boston because my family fled the starvation caused by English back home.
You are a plastic paddy. You are an American not Irish.
>I wish I could return to my homeland but until it’s free and unified I refuse.
The cringe is off the charts !!!!!
That comment alone shows your ignorance of your supposed 'homeland'.
>They wanted the Irish to starve
. What you have stated is very clearly not true.
>UK never had a policy to make everyone speak standard London English only
Were reaching revisionism never before seen