A chara, – In his recent address to the Royal Irish Academy (“Scotland shows 1916 Rising a mistake, says Bruton”, September 18th), John Bruton made a very daring attempt to predict what never happened.
There may be some similarities between Scotland today and Ireland 100 years ago. The differences, however, are many and there are three that are crucial.
Scotland does not have an armed militia, like that of the UVF, which was allowed to organise and arm itself in the open to oppose reform. There is also not a seemingly interminable world war happening on our doorsteps. Neither will Scotland have to deal with the agony of internal partition, which was written into the Third Home Rule Bill in Ireland since 1912.
Violence and partition were political realities in Ireland well before 1916. Thankfully, they are not in Scotland in 2014. – Yours, etc,
MAITIÚ de HÁL,
Cearnóg an Ghraeigh,
Baile Átha Cliath 8.
Sir, – The 1916 Rising is a fact and attempting to retrospectively justify or condemn the actions of Pearse et al is a spectacular waste of newsprint. Spare us, please, the historical fetishism and fantasy.
In this centenary of commemorations, let’s deal with each event objectively. Looking into our hearts and making conclusions based on “what ifs” and “might have beens” is a peculiarly Irish character flaw and one which I hope will be struck out by future generations. – Yours, etc,
NEIL O’BRIEN,
Affick,
Tulla,
Co Clare.
Sir, – John Bruton has conflated the Irish home rule movement and the Scottish independence referendum.
He is picking and choosing facts for a nice piece of pointless revisionism. In 1914 Ulster was armed to the teeth; so was the south but that was mainly a reaction to the formation of the Ulster Volunteers.
To take a page from Mr Bruton’s book, ie pointless and spurious historical revisionism, I would say that if the first World War had not broken out, there would have been a civil war in Ulster if all-Ireland home rule was granted as planned in 1914. That is essentially what they were planning anyway, with the weird doctrine of disloyal loyalty. Remember that 237,368 men and 234,046 women signed the Ulster Covenant specifically pledging themselves to oppose home rule at any cost. Whereas in the south there were the Irish Volunteers, with a strength of some 200,000, formed to protect home rule. Not only would home rule have led to a war, it is entirely possible to assume that this war would have been on a far greater scale, with much greater loss of life.
This is all of course absent in Scotland, making his comparison somewhat less than apt. – Yours, etc,
MARC O’CONNELL,
Margaret Street,
Cork.
Sir, – Billy Timmins is quoted as saying that “The Irish Parliamentary Party and John Redmond had no political descendants” (“Woodenbridge park to mark Wicklow dead of first World War”, September 18th).
Garret FitzGerald for one recognised that their traditions and values were very well represented in Fine Gael. I recall him saying more than once that he was particularly well placed to persuade the Fine Gael party to accept compromises on traditional nationalist positions on Northern Ireland because the FitzGeralds were from the original Sinn Féin founding wing of Cumann na nGaedhael/Fine Gael. The suggestion being that other Fine Gael leaders such as Dillon and Bruton were temperamentally unsuitable to dealing with republican nationalists because they represented the Irish Parliamentary Party and the Redmondite traditions of deeply rooted antipathy to use of violence for political ends and their absolute adherence to the principles of parliamentary democracy.
John Bruton as taoiseach had a portrait of John Redmond in his office and it was not there because they went to the same school.
The Irish Parliamentary Party tradition did not evaporate – it adapted to independence and continued its adherence to parliamentary democracy.
One wonders where we might have gone without it. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL ANDERSON,
Moyclare Close,
Baldoyle,
Dublin 13.